ENDING THE DEBATE UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE AND
WHY WORDS MATTER
A thesis presented to the Faculty of the US Army Command and General Staff College in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE General Studies
by
D JONES MAJ USA BS Colorado School of Mines Golden Colorado 1994
Fort Leavenworth Kansas 2006
Approved for public release distribution is unlimited
Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response including the time for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources gathering andmaintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of informationincluding suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services Directorate for Information Operations and Reports 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 1204 ArlingtonVA 22202-4302 Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number
1 REPORT DATE 16 JUN 2006 2 REPORT TYPE
3 DATES COVERED
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE Ending the debate unconventional warfare foreign internal defense andwhy words matter
5a CONTRACT NUMBER
5b GRANT NUMBER
5c PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6 AUTHOR(S) D Jones
5d PROJECT NUMBER
5e TASK NUMBER
5f WORK UNIT NUMBER
7 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) US Army Command and General Staff College1 Reynolds AveFort LeavenworthKS66027-1352
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER ATZL-SWD-GD
9 SPONSORINGMONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10 SPONSORMONITORrsquoS ACRONYM(S)
11 SPONSORMONITORrsquoS REPORT NUMBER(S)
12 DISTRIBUTIONAVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release distribution unlimited
13 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The original document contains color images
14 ABSTRACT There is an ongoing debate within the Special Forces community whether unconventional warfare andforeign internal defense are applicable in the contemporary and future Special Operations environmentsbased on current doctrinal definitions and operational concepts For unconventional warfare the debatesurrounds its current broad and confusing definition and whether it can be an overarching term for effortsagainst nonstate actors in the Global War on Terrorism The foreign internal defense debate is not overdefinitions but responsibilities as the conventional military begins to play a larger role in foreign internaldefense a legacy Special Forces mission This thesis argues that unconventional warfare needs a clear andconcise definition such as operations by a state or non-state actor to support an insurgency aimed at theoverthrow of a government or occupying power that unconventional warfare should not betransformed to fight global insurgency that there is an identifiable relationship between unconventionalwarfare and foreign internal defense called the transition point signifying the change fromunconventional warfare to foreign internal defense and that this relationship can be modeled thatoperational preparation of the environment is not unconventional warfare but an emerging operationrequiring its own doctrine and that unconventional warfare foreign internal defense and operationalpreparation of the environment will be the dominate Special Forces missions in the Global War on Terrorism
15 SUBJECT TERMS
16 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 17 LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
1
18 NUMBEROF PAGES
207
19a NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON
a REPORT unclassified
b ABSTRACT unclassified
c THIS PAGE unclassified
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE
THESIS APPROVAL PAGE
Name of Candidatc Major D Jones
Thesis Title Ending the Debate Unconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matter
Approved by
Thesis Committee Chair - LTC (Retired) Joseph G D Babb MA
Member LTC (Retired) Mark Lauber MS
Member James Corum PhD
Accepted this 16th day of June 2006 by
Director Graduate Degree Programs Robert F ~ amp n PhD
The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Army Command and General Staff Collcgc or any other governmental agency (References to this study should include the foregoing statcrnent)
ABSTRACT
ENDING THE DEBATE UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE AND WHY WORDS MATTER by Major D Jones 207 pages
There is an ongoing debate within the Special Forces community whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are applicable in the contemporary and future Special Operations environments based on current doctrinal definitions and operational concepts For unconventional warfare the debate surrounds its current broad and confusing definition and whether it can be an overarching term for efforts against non-state actors in the Global War on Terrorism The foreign internal defense debate is not over definitions but responsibilities as the conventional military begins to play a larger role in foreign internal defense a legacy Special Forces mission This thesis argues that unconventional warfare needs a clear and concise definition such as ldquooperations by a state or non-state actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or occupying powerrdquo that unconventional warfare should not be ldquotransformedrdquo to fight global insurgency that there is an identifiable relationship between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense called the ldquotransition pointrdquo signifying the change from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense and that this relationship can be modeled that operational preparation of the environment is not unconventional warfare but an emerging operation requiring its own doctrine and that unconventional warfare foreign internal defense and operational preparation of the environment will be the dominate Special Forces missions in the Global War on Terrorism
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In the fall of 2003 I began developing ideas presented in this thesis while trying
to explain the doctrinal differences between unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense to twelve of my student officers enrolled in the third phase of the Special Forces
Officer Qualification Course It is hard to believe three years later that this project has
finally reached fruition This thesis would not have been possible without the support of
the following
First God for all the blessings He has provided me especially my awesome wife
and amazing children that have suffered the most in the last year while I worked on this
project Since we are a Special Forces family I will observe operational security and not
mention them by name but I want to thank them for their patience love and sacrifices
over the last year My wife deserves special recognition for the long hours of proofshy
reading She now knows more about UW and FID than many of my contemporaries
Bottom line is that without God and family I would not be where I am today
Second my heartfelt thanks goes to my thesis committee--Geoff Babb Dr James
Corum and Mark Lauber Thank you for your diligence patience and long hours reading
and providing comments on this lengthy thesis Without your help and expertise in this
subject area this thesis would not have been realized
Third thanks to my staff group advisor instructor team and oral comprehensive
exam committee members for their outstanding support and professionalism Tim
McKane Dr James Willbanks LTC James Beck Major David Stephan Dennis
Hanrahan and Major Cory Peterson I would also like to thank the highly dedicated
iv
CGSC special operation detachment instructors led by LTC Chadwick Clark for their
continued support and encouragement throughout the year I could not have been blessed
with a better group of instructors
Fourth I would also like to thank my Special Forces mentors whom have had the
most profound effect on my understanding of this topic--LTC Mark Grdovic LTC
Jonathan Burns Colonel Kenneth Tovo and Major General Sidney Shachnow I would
also be remiss if I did not thank all of the noncommissioned officers whom I have been
blessed to learn from since I have been in Special Forces especially my old team
members and assistant small group instructors The experiences shared with these
unconventional warriors and leaders have allowed me to put my real world experiences
into context and develop the theories presented in the thesis
Finally I would like to thank all who endured my ranting and raving on this
subject over the last three years especially other Special Forces officers former students
fellow small group instructors staff group 5B and a number of unsuspecting targets of
opportunity who received the verbal executive summary of this project whenever one of
them ventured into my range fan Each one of these opportunities to express the points of
this thesis helped me form my arguments
De Oppresso Liber
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ACRONYMS ix
ILLUSTRATIONS x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Research Questions11 Assumptions11 Limitations 11 Scope and Delimitations 12 Significance of this Study 13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE22
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine23 Introduction23 The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries25 The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors 28 Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation29 Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History31 Special Operations Executive Summary35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare36 Introduction36 Special Operation Branch 38 The Jedburghs 39 Detachment 101 40 The Operational Groups42 Office of Strategic Services Summary47
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations 49 Introduction49 The Three Disciplines 52 Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability 55
vi
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations 56 Eastern Europe 1949-195657 Korea60 Tibet 63 Cuba 64 Laos65 Vietnam67 Nicaragua 69 Afghanistan and the Soviets70 Central Intelligence Agency Summary73
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 73 Doctrinal Developments 73 The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model96
South Vietnam 100 North Vietnam 102 El Salvador104 Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan107 Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines 109 Operation Iraqi Freedom110 Summary 114
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS115
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare115 Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition 115 Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare120
Foreign Internal Defense126 Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition 126
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 128 Logical Lines of Operations129
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation 131 Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 134 Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 137
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 138 The Transition Curve Model142
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq 145 Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model149
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 151 Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency 160 Summary 161
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 163
vii
Conclusion 163 Recommendations165 Areas for Further Research 171
GLOSSARY 173
BIBLIOGRAPHY178
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 196
viii
ACRONYMS
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
COI Coordinator of Information
CORDS Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support
DET 101 Detachment 101
DOD Department of Defense
FMLN Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front
JP Joint Publication
MI6 Military Intelligence (UK)
NORSO Norwegian Special Operations
OG Operational Groups
OPATT Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams
OSS Office of Strategic Services
SO Special Operation
SOE Special Operations Executive
US United States
USASFC United States Army Special Forces Command
VCI Viet Cong Infrastructure
ix
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model 96
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines132
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation 136
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model137
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model144
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)146
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) 148
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed150
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model160
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a definition is to clarify The term or concept in question should be more understandable once its definition has been presented Generally the ideal definition should leave little or no room for ambiguity1
David Charters and Maurice Tugwell
If you spend more than 30 seconds debating what it means it isnrsquot clear enough for the users2
Clinton JAncher III
Since its birth in 1952 Special Forces have had the exclusive responsibility
within the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct unconventional warfare Joint
Publication (JP) 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms defines unconventional warfare as
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion3
1David Charters and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz (Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984) 29
2Clinton J Ancker III Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing (Fort Leavenworth KS Director of the Armyrsquos Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005)
3Department of Defense Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet accessed on 16 December 2005
1
Although not clear in this definition doctrinally and historically unconventional
warfare is ldquothe culmination of successful [military] efforts to organize and mobilize the
civil populous against a hostile government or an occupying powerrdquo4 United States (US)
Army unconventional warfare doctrine also has an addition not found in the joint
definition stating that this operation is ldquopredominantly conducted through by and with
indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo5 A comparison between the current unconventional
warfare definition and the definition from 1955 highlights how little has changed in over
fifty years
[O]perations conducted in time of war behind enemy lines by predominantly indigenous personnel responsible in varying degrees to friendly control or direction in furtherance of military and political objectives It consists of the interrelated fields of guerrilla warfare evasion and escape and subversion against hostile states6
US unconventional warfare has historically been used in one of two ways either
to support or shape the environment for the larger conventional campaign or as a
unilateral effort generally conducted covertly7 Examples of unconventional warfare
shaping for conventional military operations are well known such as the Allied support
to the resistances in France the Balkans and the Far East in World War II and most
recently in Northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom Unilateral unconventional
4Department of the Army FM 3-0520 Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 26 June 2001) 2-1
5Ibid This version of the definition is also used in FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 1-1
6Colonel (ret) Aaron Bank From OSS to Green Beret The Birth of Special Forces (New York NY Pocket Books 1986) 179
7FM 3-0520 2-3
2
warfare efforts have been much less well known mostly due to their covert nature but
include operations behind the Iron Curtain to develop resistance capabilities in
Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s and again in Afghanistan after the events of
11 September during Operation Enduring Freedom
The unilateral examples cited above have primarily been conducted by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) which also maintains a covert unconventional warfare
capability referred to as paramilitary operations or special operations8 As William
Daugherty notes that for the CIA a special operation ldquomeans paramilitary operations-shy
military-type actions utilizing non-military personnel [indigenous personnel or
surrogates]rdquo9 The CIA has generally been responsible for conducting covert
unconventional warfare as a tool of foreign policy when the president wants to have
plausible deniability especially during peacetime Covert operations are ldquoplanned and
executed to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor A covert
operation differs from a clandestine operation in that the emphasis is placed on
concealment of the operationrdquo10 In times of conflict when military forces are employed
the DOD takes the lead responsibility for unconventional warfare The CIA conducted
numerous covert paramilitary activities during the Cold War against communist regimes
and most recently shaped the environments in Afghanistan and Iraq for Special Forces to
conduct successful unconventional warfare
8William J Daugherty Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004) 15 84-85
9Ibid 15
10FM 3-0520 Glossary 7-8
3
In the early 1960rsquos President Kennedy called upon Special Forces to use its
unconventional warfare skills and knowledge developed to support an insurgency to
defeat the Cold War communist-sponsored insurgencies or wars of national revolutions
threatening to expand globally if not checked This new mission was called foreign
internal defense and was successfully prosecuted by Special Forces teams at the tactical
and operational levels of the Vietnam War JP 1-02 defines foreign internal defense as
ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action
programs taken by another government to free and protect its society from subversion
lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo11 JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes foreign internal defense into three types of
support
Indirect--focuses on building strong national infrastructure through economic and military capabilities that contribute to self sufficiencyrdquo12
Direct (not involving combat operations)--the involvement of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populous or military13
Combat--the use of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populace or military14
As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories represent significantly different levels of US
diplomatic and military commitment and riskrdquo15
11JP 1-02
12Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
13Ibid
14Ibid
4
At the same time President Kennedy tasked the CIA with the same mission but
conducted clandestinely The clandestine foreign internal defense mission would later be
known as ldquospecial activitiesrdquo16 As William Daugherty explains
The CIArsquos paramilitary cadre is most often employed in training foreign military and security forces however training that falls under the rubric of special activities but which requires the support of the Agencyrsquos covert action infrastructure--rather than actual combat operations--was by far the most common mission of the paramilitary element17
Even though the CIA mission presented here seems confusing the covert finding is the
constraining document that provides the detailed operational limitations and political
goals alleviating any confusion
By the end of Vietnam Special Forces had also conducted special reconnaissance
against the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos and Cambodia and direct action in the highly-
publicized raid on the Son Tay prison camp in an attempt to rescue American prisoners of
war which would later be added to Special Forces doctrine as personnel recovery With
the strategic military and political failure of Vietnam Special Forces tried to distance
itself from foreign internal defense which carried with it the stigma of Vietnam At the
same time Special Forces all but forgot about its unconventional warfare roots because
the likelihood of successfully conducting unconventional warfare in the nuclear age
seemed remote Instead Special Forces focused on less politically-charged missions
such as special reconnaissance and direct action which both fit nicely in the operations
plans of the Cold War
15Ibid I-4
16Daugherty 85
17Ibid 84-85
5
In the 1980s Special Forces conducted foreign internal defense to defeat an
insurgency in El Salvador and Honduras and provided support to the CIArsquos covert
unconventional warfare efforts to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras
in Nicaragua All of these operations proved successful although Special Forces had only
been utilized in a supporting role during the two unconventional warfare campaigns The
success in El Salvador began a string of successes for Special Forces conducting special
reconnaissance direct action and foreign internal defense in places such as Panama
Desert Storm Bosnia and Kosovo adding other missions such as combat search and
rescue and coalition support to its repertoire as well By 2001 few thought that
unconventional warfare would ever be conducted again and there were numerous studies
to determine the relevancy of unconventional warfare in future conflicts18 In the summer
of 2001 senior Special Forces leadership attempted to ensure continued Special Forces
viability by placing all Special Forces missions under a broad category of unconventional
warfare These included not only Special Forcesrsquo missions to date but now included
counterproliferation combating terrorism and the other collateral activities such as
humanitarian demining operations and coalition support19 However their efforts would
be disrupted by the terrorist attacks of 11 September
Less than two years later Special Forces had successfully prosecuted two
unconventional warfare campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan
using indigenous forces instead of massive conventional formations and the other a
18Colonel Michael R Kershner ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84
19FM 3-0520 2-1
6
shaping operation in northern Iraq using the indigenous Kurdish insurgents to fix thirteen
of twenty Iraqi divisions north of Baghdad lessening the burden on the conventional
combined forces land component commandrsquos southern invasion force Now in the
postconflict phase of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Special Forces should
doctrinally be conducting foreign internal defense helping the indigenous government
forces to defeat internal threats in an attempt to secure the environment and allow the
political processes to develop
To date however Special Forces have been primarily employed in unilateral
actions focused on ldquokill or capturerdquo missions This unilateral employment has all but
negated the force multiplying capability inherent in Special Forces operations through
training and advising indigenous government security forces Instead the conventional
Army has taken on the majority of the training and advising roles in both theaters
Although Special Forces touts working by with and through indigenous forces as its
core competency Special Forces found ways to remove itself from the burden of training
and advising indigenous conventional units in Iraq and Afghanistan Using the Global
War on Terrorism as a reason a similar pattern of passing missions to Marines or
contractors is evident in other foreign internal defense operations such as the Georgian
train and equip mission and the African Crisis Response Initiative now referred to as
ACOTA or African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance20
20GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 available from
7
As of the spring of 2006 the debate continues throughout the Special Forces
community as to whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
are still applicable in todayrsquos contemporary operating environment and future conflicts
Studies being conducted seem to continue to suggest that current unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine and definitions need to be ldquotransformedrdquo for a new
application against non-state actors This is a new twist on an old debate However all of
these studies seem to gloss over the fact that in Afghanistan and Iraq unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense have been the primary operations being conducted
by Special Forces
The success of these operations with regards to Special Forcesrsquo efforts is due to
the application of legacy unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
Therefore current attempts to redefine and apply these doctrinal operations in an effort to
ldquotransformrdquo them for the current operations against non-state actors such as al Qarsquoida and
its associated movements have been difficult for one simple reason--historically and
doctrinally unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are only applicable to a
single nation state not a non-state entity21 These operations were never meant for
anything other than supporting insurgencies and or defeating insurgencies within a nation
httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraraycongress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2005
21Spelling convention for al Qarsquoida used throughout thesis comes from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet accessed on 6 February 2006
8
state and thus have proven themselves to be just as applicable today as in the days of their
inception
In both Iraq and Afghanistan unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
have been operationally linked as never before At some point in time during both of
these operations combat operations shifted to stability operations and with this shift
Special Forces should have changed mission orientation from unconventional warfare to
foreign internal defense However few within the special operations community
identified this transition and continued to define Special Forces operations in both
theaters as unconventional warfare The major obstacle to understanding this linkage is
the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be high-intensity combat theaters nothing like
the low-intensity or traditional peacetime foreign internal defense missions in theaters
like Columbia Thailand or the hundreds of other countries that Special Forces conduct
foreign internal defense as part of the geographic combatant commanderrsquos theater
security cooperation plan
The last historical example of a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense was in France the Balkans and Southeast Asia at the end of World War
II when the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and British Special Operations
Executive (SOE) conducted operations to weaken the occupying Axis powers However
even these case studies are flawed because there was almost no US involvement in the
postwar stability operations in these countries after World War II Germany and France
were the only two countries that the US conducted full-scale stability security transition
and reconstruction operations but since there were no viable resistance organizations for
the OSS and the SOE to support they are of no use to this study In the countries in
9
which OSS and SOE had operated the resistance apparatus was either demobilized-shy
disarmed paid and returned to civilian status or turned over the newly re-established
governments Therefore no relationships between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense were established which led to ldquodemobilizationrdquo becoming part of the
legacy of US unconventional warfare doctrine
Current foreign internal defense doctrine was developed out of Special Forces
experience from communist wars of national liberation in Vietnam and Latin America as
well as US nation building efforts in countries like Haiti Bosnia and Kosovo Special
Forces did not conduct unconventional warfare--US sponsored insurgency--during these
operations even though its mode of operation may have been by through and with
indigenous forces
Understanding the distinction between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense will be extremely important with the adoption of pre-emption and regime
removal as doctrinal concepts The US military has to be ready for the same kinds of
operations that it has observed since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom where there are unconventional warfare efforts in pre-conflict
and conflict phases which then transition to foreign internal defense operations in the
postconflict phases and finally return to peacetime engagement In developing future
major campaign and operational plans understanding the roles of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as well as how and when these two missions are related will
be extremely important for the planner A solid doctrinal model for this relationship may
be the basis for joint and interagency coordination throughout the campaign
10
Research Questions
The primary research question this thesis will answer is if unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as currently defined are still applicable to current and future
Special Forcesrsquo operations To answer the primary question three secondary questions
must be answered what are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and
how are they related In answering the secondary question of what unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense are similar tertiary questions must be answered for
each what is the doctrinal and operational history of Special Forces and CIA with respect
to these two missions what is their application against non-state actors and global
insurgency and should they be redefined With regards to the secondary question on the
interrelation of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense the tertiary
questions are Is there an identifiable transition point between the two and can a
relationship be modeled
Assumptions
The major assumption of this research project is that the simple meanings of
words can have a significant effect on the operational employment of Special Forces and
are not just a matter of semantics Another assumption is that senior Special Forces
leaders will be willing to address the findings of this project if they are contrary to current
thoughts and frameworks
Limitations
This thesis is written as an unclassified manuscript using public information that
is available through the Combined Arms Research Library and other electronic and
11
internet databases that are generally available to the public Although the research may be
in the classified and unclassified realm only unclassified materials and references will be
used in the thesis All references will be listed in the bibliography for further research of
the reader
Case studies used in the research and presentation of this thesis will be studied
through secondary sources and will not involve visits to the battlefield or areas of
operations due to lack of dedicated funding for such study In case studies related to
Kosovo or the efforts in Northern Iraq first hand knowledge may be relied upon and
checked with other sources
Scope and Delimitations
This study will assess current unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine of the US Army Special Forces and joint doctrine This study will also address
the current missions that are being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan and compare them
to other unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense missions from history
Classified missions or units will not be discussed by name although unclassified terms
for these missions and elements may be included This may lead to confusion for some
readers that lack special operations background and therefore will be avoided as much
as possible This study will also describe joint and interagency relationships necessary for
Special Forces employment during unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
This study will not describe in detail the other core tasks of Special Forces unless they
have a direct bearing on some finding or recommendation This study will use Special
Forces throughout due to the historical significance of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense to Special Forces The Special Forces branch is the proponent for 12
unconventional warfare doctrine as well However special operations forces could be
used interchangeably where Special Forces are used to describe operations from 1990 to
today
Significance of this Study
The current trend in the Special Forces community is to use unconventional
warfare as an overarching term to describe any operation conducted by through or with
indigenous or surrogate forces even operations that are clearly not aimed at the
overthrow or removal of a hostile government or occupying power Some reasons for
using the term unconventional warfare are to ensure a niche mission for special
operations forces it is a popular term today for the civilian leadership who view
unconventional warfare as the opposite of conventional warfare fitting nicely into the
Global War on Terrorism and a broad definition would seem to un-constrain Special
Forces operations since all missions could invariably be called unconventional and gain
larger political and budgetary support The last point was evident in the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review that recommended a significant increase in special
operations forces to prosecute the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo campaign22
Based on Special Forcesrsquo contemporary experiences the continued
misunderstanding of unconventional warfare and the resulting attempts to redefine it as
an overarching term may have unforeseen and unanticipated consequences on todayrsquos
battlefield and in future campaigns For example the rules of engagement in ldquoclassicrdquo
22Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report (6 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
13
unconventional warfare aimed at overthrowing or removing a government is much less
restrictive than the rules of engagement in a foreign internal defense mission23 In the
latter mission the rules of engagement are very restrictive Thus using unconventional
warfare as an overarching term could have ramifications in places where Special Forcesrsquo
efforts are purely to train and advise a host nation to deny sanctuary to its enemies In this
case the restrictions keep US military efforts from being directly employed such as in
Colombia The rules of engagement are directly tied to the most important word when
dealing with operations that require the support of the local populations and international
opinion legitimacy
For the US to support an insurgency or to support a government fighting an
insurgency the question of legitimacy is primary According to Timothy J Lomperis ldquoan
insurgency is a political challenge to a regimersquos authority by an organized and violent
questioning of the regimersquos claims to legitimacyrdquo24 Based on this definition when the
US is conducting unconventional warfare in support of an insurgency it is also
challenging the legitimacy of the regime and may be using conventional military means
as well When the US is supporting a government using foreign internal defense then it is
supporting the claims of legitimacy of the host nation Based on the recent experiences in
Iraq and Afghanistan it is obvious that at some point when the transition from conflict to
postconflict or unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The US military
23Major Peter McCollaum Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
24Timothy J Lomperis From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam (Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996) 33
14
must constrain its use of military action to legitimize its efforts and those of the new
government Not understanding this leads to the misuse of its firepower-centric
conventional military capabilities that ultimately decrease ones legitimacy This point is
highlighted in JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal
Defense
The nature of US tactical participation in HN[Host Nation] internal conflicts requires judicious and prudent rules of engagement (ROE) and guidelines for the application of force Inappropriate destruction and violence attributed to US forces may easily reduce the legitimacy and sovereignty of the supported government In addition these incidents may be used by adversaries to fuel anti-American sentiments and assist the cause of the opposition25
This is further evidenced by the outcry over the use of ldquotorturerdquo to gather intelligence the
environment has changed and legitimacy may be more important for long-lasting support
than the short-term gains of torture
The purpose of this thesis is to clarify the doctrine and attempt to end the nearly
fifty-five year old debate determine the relationship of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense and determine what the application of these two missions will be
in the Global War on Terrorism In this ldquolong warrdquo as Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld calls it understanding exactly what kind of operation is being undertaken and
the environment will be critical for maintaining legitimacy of US efforts and those of
friendly insurgencies and governments to maintain local regional and international
support for the Global War on Terrorism
25JP 3-071 I-14
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are numerous sources available on both the topics of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense These sources include books professional civilian
journal articles military doctrinal manuals and military journals specifically Special
Warfare magazine produced by the United States John F Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School The use of unconventional warfare in these publications runs the
gambit from describing support to insurgency to the use of special operations forces
conducting unilateral operations In some cases counterinsurgency is also described as a
component of unconventional warfare The literature review shows that there is obviously
a lot of confusion on terms and definitions related to unconventional warfare
The most current information on unconventional warfare and Special Forces
operations can be found in three different manuals The first is US Army Field Manual
(FM) 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations (1999) the second is Change 1 FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations (2004) and third FM 3-05201 Special Forces
Unconventional Warfare Operations (2003) All three manuals use the unconventional
warfare definition found in the 2001 Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Currently the final draft of the newest FM
3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare is being reviewed Due to its final
draft status and classification none of the newest changes will be directly addressed in
this thesis There is currently no joint doctrine for unconventional warfare
16
Some of the useful historical unconventional warfare related documents are the
FM 31-20 series of manuals (1961 and 1965) These manuals are the last ldquountaintedrdquo
versions prior to the lessons and doctrine from Special Forces involvement in Vietnam
being incorporated into doctrine The Special Forces manuals after 1965 increasingly
show the effects of mission creep and a graying of unconventional warfare and
counterinsurgency It was out of this confusion that todayrsquos broad unconventional warfare
definition arose
In the summer of 2001 the United States Army Special Forces Command
(USASFC) completed a study called Unconventional Warfare 2020 The aim of the study
was to define Special Forcesrsquo future concepts and ensure relevancy for the force as the
Army was concurrently conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates as part of
Joint Vision 2020 now referred to as ldquotransformationrdquo Colonel Michael Kershner
former Deputy Commander of USASFC summarized the findings of this study in a
series of articles such as the one that appeared in the Winter 2001 edition of Special
Warfare titled ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military
Operationsrdquo However the events of 11 September would put these efforts on hold In
2003 the newest version of next FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare
Operations was published This version should have captured the findings from the
Unconventional Warfare 2020 study but in fact they had been lost To date they have not
been addressed with the focus now turned towards the application of unconventional
warfare against non-state actors
Foreign internal defense references are even more plentiful and the term more
commonly understood The volume of work on this subject is due to the renewed interest
17
in the subject based on the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the
publication of the DOD Directive 300005 titled Military Support for Stability Security
Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) However there are few works that address
foreign internal defense in a high-intensity environment Others only describe foreign
internal defense as training missions in support of host nation governments
There are two excellent foreign internal defense manuals FM 21-20-3 Foreign
Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces published in
1994 and the Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense which was updated in early 2004 These manuals are the
clearest and most concise documents dealing with foreign internal defense This is most
likely due to the fact that foreign internal defense doctrine is much more black and white
than unconventional warfare doctrine An extremely detailed historical study of the
development of US counterinsurgency doctrine leading up to the formal foreign internal
defense doctrine can be found in Larry Cablersquos book Conflict of Myths The Development
of American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War published in 1986
There are no sources that address any type of transition between the
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense There are however some
references to the transition or termination point between conflict and postconflict
operations of conventional forces that may be applicable to defining the unconventional
warfare to foreign internal defense transition The most significant problem with these
studies is that they were written prior to 11 September and focus on the termination of
combat operations versus the termination of hostilities or the return to peacetime
engagement
18
Special Warfare magazine also provides a sense of past and current trends of
understanding of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense from the
perspective of Special Forces concept and doctrinal development The large body of
articles in Special Warfare highlights the confusion surrounding unconventional warfare
The most recent example of senior Special Forces leader misunderstanding
unconventional warfare is found in the May 2004 Special Warfare in which now retired
Major General Geoffrey C Lambert former commanding general of the Special Warfare
Center and School explains that ldquoSpecial Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare
which includes counterinsurgency [authorsrsquo emphasis] and guerrilla warfarerdquo
A more recent issue April 2005 had an article titled ldquoOperation White Star A
UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo by Major Dean S Newman in which he
describes the use of unconventional warfare to fight insurgencies and terrorism His
premise is based on his historical analysis of the White Star program a clandestine CIA
special activity program to support indigenous Laotian Hmong tribesmen to disrupt North
Vietnamese Ho Chi Minh Trail and sanctuary areas inside of Laos While commonly
referred to as an unconventional warfare program by many historians and authors White
Star was actually a clandestine foreign internal defense operation using an indigenous
element to fight an insurgency when the host nation government did not want to get
involved The article is fraught with contradictions and misuse of terms and ideas Had
Major Newman approached this topic from the point of view that the North Vietnamese
were ldquooccupyingrdquo these Laotian sanctuary areas and that the Laotian government was
unable to regain control he may have been able to substantiate his argument that White
19
Star was an unconventional warfare operation However his argument that
unconventional warfare can be used against an insurgency is still an oxymoron
One of the best sources on the future of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense is Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-3-520
Military Operations Future Force Concepts for Army Special Operations Forces dated
14 January 2004 This pamphlet provides the conceptual foundation for the
transformation current Special Forces operations into what is referred to as full spectrum
Special Forces operations In the full spectrum Special Forces operations concept
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are two of the three major mission
sets This is a departure from the Unconventional Warfare 2020 findings since it once
talks specifically of two separate missions unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense This publication was not published by the doctrine branches of the Special
Warfare Center and School which may account for its significant departure from the
mainstream of Special Forces doctrine published by the Special Warfare Center
Historical references for unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are
mostly detailed studies of the history of Special Forces An example of this is Thomas
Adamsrsquo US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional
Warfare Susan Marquisrsquo Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations
Forces and most recently Hy Rothsteinrsquos Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of
Unconventional Warfare published in 2006 The best book for understanding the original
intent of unconventional warfare is found in Colonel Aaron Bankrsquos autobiography From
OSS to Green Berets Bank who recently died at the age of 101 was known as the
ldquofather of Special Forcesrdquo His book describes in detail how he worked on developing the
20
Special Forces in the early 1950s This is one of the few primary sources from one of the
original authors of Special Forces doctrine With respect to foreign internal defense
primary sources Charles Simpson provides an excellent account of the first thirty years
of Special Forces in his book Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years
There have also been numerous Command and General Staff College Master of
Military Art and Science and School of Advanced Military Studies thesis papers on both
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and their application across the
spectrum of operations One School of Advanced Military Studiesrsquo thesis by Major Duke
C Shienle provides some insight on the use of indigenous forces developed for
unconventional warfare in the postconflict phase and uses ldquounconventional operationsrdquo to
highlight the overarching use of indigenous forces in both missions He also suggests
renaming the final phase of unconventional warfare from demobilization to postconflict
to highlight the use of indigenous forces in both environments
Review of the literature indicates there are no definitive studies that answer the
questions proposed here Indeed most of the literature on these topics have not provided
suitable definitions of unconventional warfare and continue to demonstrate a lack of
common understanding or agreement as to what unconventional warfare is With respect
to foreign internal defense numerous articles have been written on this subject but none
have presented options for the employment of Special Forces found in this thesis and no
articles have been written on trying to redefine foreign internal defense Finally no
articles have been written that have tried to explain the relationship between
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
21
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE
The purpose of this research is to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense as traditionally defined are still applicable to Special Forces operations
in the contemporary and future operating environments This chapter will begin to answer
the tertiary research question ldquoWhat is the doctrinal and operational history of the
Special Forces and the CIA with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defenserdquo This will be accomplished using three research methods doctrinal
development comparison historical comparison and case studies
The doctrinal development and historical comparisons will be intertwined due to
the nature of this subject in which doctrine and historical developments happened
concurrently This study will chronicle the doctrinal development of US unconventional
warfare from the British development of this concept prior to World War II to todayrsquos
operations The comparison will be made in relation to the SOE the OSS the CIA and
finally the US Army Special Forces This construct was chosen because it allowed the
chronological development of unconventional warfare doctrine and practice from the
original concepts developed by the forefathers of the British SOE to the establishment of
the American OSS and the growing and employment pains of unconventional warfare in
World War II
The study will then focus on the sometimes rough transition from the OSS to the
CIA and the history of the agencyrsquos use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense up to the events of 11 September As for the Special Forces the study will
22
analyze the history of Special Forces and with respect to unconventional warfare and
later foreign internal defense from the initial concepts for a military unconventional
warfare capability in the early 1950 to the present
Each historical analysis will be summarized with respect to the type of operation-shy
unconventional warfare or foreign internal defense the signature of the operation--overt
to covert the operational relationship--decisive or shaping and finally the operations
approach--indirect direct and combat--the same support pattern from foreign internal
defense doctrine Lastly in the unconventional warfare cases an analysis will also be
made as to the mode of transition of the resistance forces whether they were
demobilized turned over to the government immediately or if US efforts or ties to the
organization were stopped with no transitory event
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
Introduction
World War I witnessed the first modern use of unconventional warfare as an
economy of force operation by both the British and Germans in peripheral campaigns
outside of continental Europe In essence unconventional warfare is the support to an
indigenous insurgent or resistance group aimed at overthrowing a constituted government
or an occupying power respectively Unconventional warfare can be used to support to
resistance elements also known as partisans resisting an occupier as an economy of
force during major operations by forcing the commitment of enemy conventional forces
to guarding rear areas instead of being employed on the front lines
The primary benefit of unconventional warfare is the disproportionate resources
that a government or an occupier is forced to commit against a relatively weak opponent 23
The insurgent if employed correctly maintains the initiative by deciding the time and
place of its attacks In other words they never conduct an operation unless success is
likely or outweighs the risk to the insurgent movement For the hostile government or
occupier large amounts of resources including personnel money and equipment are
necessary to secure lines of communication key facilities and capabilities and key
terrain When in support of a conventional military effort these enemy resources are kept
from being deployed to main conventional battle areas By World War II unconventional
warfare had become a great threat to modern armies because of their ldquoabsolute
dependence on industrial and economic bases in their rear and on lines of
transportationrdquo26
During World War I unconventional warfare was used by both the British and the
Germans The young British Captain (later Colonel) T E Lawrence an advisor to Sherif
Feisal the future King of Iraq used the Arab Army to help the British defeat the Turks27
In East Africa the German Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck commanded a
guerrilla army of 14000 which successfully tied down the efforts of 160000 British
Portuguese and Belgian troops28 Both of these efforts were successful not due to the
tactical outcome of their efforts to support partisan forces but at the operational and
strategic level by diverting enemy forces from other fronts Both of these efforts proved
26F O Miksche Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements (London Faber and Faber Limited) 35
27Michael Yardley T E Lawrence A Biography (New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000) 83-84
28Robert B Asprey War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History (New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994) 174
24
the concept of supporting indigenous resistance elements but given the scale and
devastation of World War I especially on the Western Front the British failed to initially
assimilate these lessons into their doctrine assuming that the next great power war would
not occur for at least ten years29
During the interwar years unconventional warfare was virtually forgotten until
the rise of Adolph Hitler energized the study of unconventional warfare by the British
These studies began in 1938 when Adolph Hitler annexed Austria and the British began
to look seriously at the possibility of another war against Germany The British War
Office driven by the impending German threat to Europe tasked individuals each with
varying degrees of experience in irregular warfare to study irregular capabilities and
operations as well as to develop operational concepts for the employment of such forces
To their credit they produced extraordinary results considering the complexity of these
types of operations As a result of these studies the British developed the SOE in midshy
1940
The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries
One of the first individuals to be tasked with the detailed study of unconventional
warfare concepts was Major Lawrence Grand assigned under Admiral ldquoQuexrdquo Sinclair
the head of the British Secret or Special Intelligence Service to look at ldquothe theory of
secret offensives how could enemies be attacked otherwise than by the usual military
meansrdquo30 Simultaneously other officers were given similar tasks and as happens with
29M R D Foot The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 (London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984) 9
30Ibid 10-11 25
projects surrounded in secrecy none of them knew of the parallel efforts From this
emerged another unconventional warfare visionary Lieutenant Colonel J C F Holland
who became interested in ldquoirregular warfarerdquo based on his experiences in Ireland and his
first-hand knowledge of the T E Lawrencersquos operations against the Turks As M R D
Foot describes Hollandrsquos studies
[He] collected reports on Boer tactics in the South African war on Lawrence and his partners on guerilla activities in the Russian civil war the Spanish Civil War the struggle between China and Japan the smouldering [sic] Arab-Jewish conflicts in Palestine and of course on Ireland31
Holland became an advocate of irregular warfare which at the time included guerrilla
warfare and psychological operations and had sufficient backing by the deputy director
of British Intelligence that his ideas would become the foundation of the yet-to-beshy
formed SOE
Another visionary that would tie all of these studies together was Sir Colin
Gubbins Described by S J Lewis as ldquoone of the most important personalities of the
SOErdquo Gubbins would later rise to distinction as the commander of the SOE32 Gubbins
wrote two field manuals or pamphlets The Art of Guerrilla Warfare and Partisan
Leadersrsquo Handbook both of which would become the core training documents for future
SOE operatives33
The final visionary and a man with sufficient knowledge and political influence to
provide the strategic vision for an organization such as the SOE was Dr Hugh Dalton
31Ibid 11-12
32S J Lewis Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 (Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991) 3
33Ibid
26
who was the Minister of Economic Warfare in 1940 After a meeting in mid-July of
1940 aimed at trying to decide who would head an organization for conducting irregular
warfare Dalton wrote a letter that laid out the intent of such an organization and a basic
strategy for its employment As Dalton explained ldquoWe have got to organize movements
in enemy-occupied territory comparable to the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland [and] to
the Chinese Guerillas now operating against Japanrdquo34 He described this organization
as a ldquodemocratic internationalrdquo and suggested that it ldquomust use many different methods
including industrial and military sabotage labour agitation and strikes continuous
propaganda terrorist acts against traitors and German leaders boycotts and riotsrdquo35 He
suggested that there needed to be ldquoa new organization to co-ordinate inspire control and
assist the nationals of oppressed countries who must themselves be the direct participants
We need absolute secrecy a certain fanatical enthusiasm willingness to work with
people of different nationalities [and] complete political reliabilityrdquo36 Dalton would
become SOErsquos first chairman responsible to the chief of staff of the War Cabinet who
would provide him with the strategic intent for SOE operations He was ordered by
Churchill to ldquoset Europe ablazerdquo37
While there were others that were involved in the development of the SOE these
four visionaries stand out as the most important to the overall development of British
unconventional warfare capabilities leading up to the establishment of the SOE
34Foot 19
35Ibid
36Ibid
37Ibid 30
27
The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors
The SOErsquos most powerful weapon and what set SOE apart from MI6--the British
intelligence service whose primary mission was espionage was SOErsquos ability to organize
armed indigenous populations in occupied territories to resist their occupiers SOE
operatives were simply the facilitators to make the resistance organizations a viable threat
to the occupying forces With the advent of man-portable long-range communications
and aerial delivery systems these populations were now within reach and could be
supported by bringing material by air as well as synchronized into the larger theater
campaign What made this such a worthwhile venture was the large number of potential
recruits thanks to the interests and actions of the German occupiers As F O Miksche
explains ldquoPrecisely as in the First World War the German war aims were too vague
and indefinite to offer any attractions to the people of Europe the Germans in both
world conflicts were psychologically incapable of gaining the sympathy of the masses38
These operations would force the Germans and their allies to expend exponentially
increasing numbers of troops the farther they advanced from Germany As Miksche
notes ldquoHitlerrsquos armoured legions which were able to first surround the enemy forces
were themselves ultimately surrounded by wholly hostile populationsrdquo39 It would be
these populations that the SOE would organize train and advise
38Miksche 45
39Ibid 73
28
Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation
The conceptual applications of unconventional warfare by the British and their
actual operational successes were a testament to the capabilities of the resistance The
British SOE was originally based on small teams that would be able to organize
resistance cells and intelligence networks These SOE operatives would infiltrate into a
denied area by air boat or rat-line--a clandestine means of moving personnel overland
by different techniques They would then linkup with the indigenous resistance force and
develop the force for further operations and intelligence collection The organization for
an average network or circuit included an organizer a courier who was often a woman a
wireless operator and a sabotage instructor Once on the ground the organizers and
wireless operators if not one in the same minimized contact as much as possible because
the wireless ldquowas always the circuitrsquos weakest pointrdquo40
Initially the SOE established small clandestine cellular networks in German-
occupied territory called ldquoreseauxrdquo41 In such an environment the first step in establishing
a network was for a single agent to parachute in to pave the way for the network leader
who would follow a number of days later The initial agent was responsible for
establishing or making contact with intelligence and support networks The network
leader would then parachute in and continue to expand the network He would receive
further augmentation over time depending on his requests The network leader could also
40Foot 106
41Sir Robin Brook ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed (Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992) 69
29
request low-density specialties if necessary This was the case when Francis Suttill head
of the Prosper network in Paris requested an operator skilled at identifying and
establishing air landing zones Three months after the establishment of the Prosper
network Henri Dericourt a former French pilot arrived and was able to organize landing
areas that would receive over sixty-seven agents42
The SOE was also capable of supporting and organizing larger resistance
organizations especially in countries such as Yugoslavia where the resistance had
liberated areas in which the resistance armies could grow relatively unhindered by Axis
counterinsurgency operations This was also possible in France but security concerns
lengthened the time for these networks to grow into substantial numbers The French
Jockey network led by Francis Cammaerts developed into a large network carefully over
time Cammaerts accomplished this by establishing a true self-healing cellular network of
independent but linked groups that kept the network safe even if one of the independent
cells was disrupted This network grew to an amazing army of 10000 resistance
members that encompassed areas from Lyons to the Mediterranean coast to the Italian
and Swiss Frontiers43 In support of Normandy SOE and the US OSS formed the
Jedburghs which operated ldquounder secrecy but more exposed and apt to be in uniform
[which] was more appropriate for close cooperation with invading Allied troopsrdquo44
42ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtmInternet accessed on 2 December 2005
43Ibid
44Brook 69
30
Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History
The SOE traces its lineage directly to the British Secret Intelligence Service
better known as MI6 After MI6rsquos embarrassing loss of its intelligence networks in most
of occupied Europe to German penetration it would take Daltonrsquos SOE to reestablish
intelligence and operational networks that would support Allied operations throughout
the war A short time before the German invasion and occupation of France the chiefs of
staff of the British War Cabinet identified one British strategic objective as ldquothe creation
of widespread revolt in Germanyrsquos conquered territoriesrdquo45 To this end they realized
that an organization would have to be established to meet this goal Lord Neville
Chamberlain whom had resigned as the British Prime Minister after mishandling Hitler
at Munich was still a powerful influence as a member of the War Cabinet and signed the
founding charter of SOE on 19 July 1940 This charter established by name the SOE and
its role ldquoto co-ordinate [sic] all action by way of subversion and sabotage against the
enemy overseasrdquo46
The SOErsquos original capabilities came from the MI6 Section D EH and MI R
Section D which stood for destruction had been MI6rsquos sabotage section47 The Electra
House or EH as it was known was the site of Sir Campbell Stuartrsquos Department a
subsection of the Foreign Office of MI648 MI R stood for Military Intelligence
45Foot 18
46Ibid 20-21
47Ibid 22
48Ibid 253
31
Research49 Originally SOE was subdivided into three special operations branches SO1
SO2 and SO3 SO1 was the propaganda section but in August 1941 it was taken away
from SOE after numerous arguments and turned into its own department the Political
Warfare Executive SO2 was the active operations department while SO3 was for
planning50 There were also compartmentalized sections for each occupied country and a
liaison relationship existed with the governments in exile or representatives of
independent resistance organizations
The rivalry between the MI6 and SOE would continue throughout the war for one
simple reason as Roy Godson explains
There are invariably tensions between the [clandestine collectors and covert action officers] Clandestine collectors frequently work with sources who have political goals the same kinds of people who would also be targeted by covert action officers Covert action officersrsquo connections meanwhile are almost by definition good for the collector51
Nigel Morris describes MI6rsquos reservations about the SOE ldquo[The] Head of SIS [Secret
Intelligence Service] Sir Stewart Menzies stated repeatedly that SOE were lsquoamateur
dangerous and bogusrsquo and took it upon himself to bring massive internal pressure to bear
on the fledgling organizationrdquo52 The other ldquosecret rivalsrdquo as Foot calls them included not
only the propaganda branches but with the Admiralty over SOE maritime operations the
49Ibid 254
50Ibid 22
51Roy Godson Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence (New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004) 34-35
52Niger Morris ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940shy1946rdquo BBC History available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwo soe_printhtml Internet accessed on 1 December 2005
32
Air Ministry over air clearance and with the Royal Air Force over who was more
effective53 Morris also noted that ldquoBomber Command also despised SOE and resented
having to loan aircraft for lsquounethicalrsquo clandestine missions They wanted to win the war
by bombing Germany to its kneesrdquo54
Some of the more famous and unclassified operations that the SOE conducted
include the sabotage of the Pessac power station in France the assassination of Reinhard
Heydrich in Czechoslovakia the destruction of the Gorgopotamos rail bridge in Greece
and the destruction of the German heavy-water plant in Norway The destruction of the
Pessac power plant disrupted German U-boat operations at the port in Bordeaux The
assassination of Heydrich was carried out to counter his new posting and strong arm
counterinsurgent tactics which included round-up executions The Gorgopotamos rail
bridge linked a secondary supply route for the German effort in North Africa Finally
destruction of the heavy-water plant and associated barges crippled the Germanrsquos atomic
weapons program in 194355 The most notable resistance operations took place in support
of the D-Day landings by disrupting German reserves logistics and by providing
intelligence and guides to advancing Allied forces As Foot highlights ldquoAll told about
10000 tons of warlike stores were put into France by SOE 4000 of them before and
6000 after the landing in Normandy arms for about half a million men and a fair amount
of explosivesrdquo56
53Foot 26-27
54Morris
55Ibid
56Foot 222-3 33
The British employed about 5000 SOE operators during the war the largest
contingent going to France and Yugoslavia followed by Greece Italy Belgium Poland
Albania Abyssinia Burma Malaya Scandinavia Switzerland Hungary Romania Siam
the Dutch East Indies and lesser operations in Turkey and China57 Resistance forces
supported by the SOE while not decisive shaped the battle space by tying up numerous
Axis divisions in each country In 1942 the exiled governments of the Czechs Dutch
French Norwegians and Poles suggested to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff that
there should be a single headquarters to direct irregular operations in occupied Europe
As Foot notes ldquo[they] were each astonished to receive his reply that such a body had
already existed for almost two years [which] lsquoleft the Allied commanders breathless
SOE was so secret that its name and existence had never been disclosed to themrdquo58 The
most extreme example of these combined operations was in Poland at the maximum
reach of SOErsquos air branch Polish resistance received 485 successful drops during the
war three hundred SOE operatives and twenty-eight couriers all but five which were
Polish and 600 tons of war material59
In January of 1944 SOE and the US OSS which was modeled after the SOE in
1942 merged headquarters for the invasion called the Special Forces Headquarters In
1946 the SOE rivalry with MI6 ended with many of the SOE networks to include its
world wide communications being shutdown or transferred to MI6 under Menzies Thus
ended the SOE
57Ibid 62 172-242
58Ibid 152
59Ibid 191
34
Special Operations Executive Summary
While some would argue that SOErsquos contributions were negligible in the overall
scheme of the war they are best summed up in a letter from General Dwight D
Eisenhower to Gubbins on 31 May 1945
In no previous war and in no other theatre during this war have resistance forces been so closely harnessed to the main military effort While no final assessment of the operational value of resistance action has yet been completed I consider that the disruption of enemy rail communications the harassing of German road moves and the continual and increasing strain placed on the German war economy and internal security services throughout occupied Europe by the organized forces of resistance played a very considerable part in our complete and final victory60
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
SOE operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements It was
not covert per say since it was generally known that the Allies were conducting these
operations The SOE operations were shaping operational versus decisive supporting the
Allied efforts before and after D-Day Lastly the operational approach was for the most
part combat support with each element conducting combat advising However as the
networks grew and cadres were trained by the SOE operators as in the case of the Jockey
network the individual cells conducted operations coordinated by the Special Forces
Headquarters but not directly supervised by the SOE operatives thus the approach was
more direct than combat support
60ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo
35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare
Introduction
With Americarsquos sudden entrance into World War II the US scrambled to gain a
war footing and mobilize for war One of its weakest areas was the lack of capabilities to
gather strategic intelligence This weakness was highlighted by the failures of any
coordinated intelligence effort to provide early warning of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor in December 1941 The US looked to the British for help with establishing an
intelligence capability Roy Godson points out that for ldquoall intents and purposes US
security [was] being run for [the US] at the Presidentrsquos request by the Britishrdquo61 The
British agent of influence was William Stephenson of the British Security Coordination
who had the ear to the President in much the same way the British had influenced US
commitment in World War I Stephenson would help the legendary William ldquoWild Billrdquo
Donovan organize the first American centralized intelligence organization initially called
the Coordinator of Information (COI) on 11 July 1941 which in 1942 became the
OSS62
The COI organization had three sub-branches all focused on intelligence
gathering The Radio News Branch the Research and Analysis Branch and the Visual
Present Branch Eighty to ninety percent of the intelligence gathered by the Research and
Analysis Branch came from open sources such as its Division of Special Information
Library of Congress63 When COI was transformed into the OSS organization in 1942
61Godson 23
62Ibid
63Brook 89
36
the organizational changes were significant First the organizationrsquos main operational
elements were split into two deputy directorates the Deputy Director of Strategic
Services Operations and Deputy Director of Intelligence Services The Strategic Services
Operations were further sub-divided into six subordinate elements Special Operations
Morale Operations Maritime Units Special Projects Field Experimental Unit and
Operational Group Command The Intelligence Services was sub-divided into five units
Secret Intelligence X-2 or Counterintelligence Research and Analysis Foreign
Nationalities and Censorship and Documents
As Lawrence McDonald noted ldquoGeneral Donovan believed that the principal
contribution of OSS would be strategic intelligence which is the basis for the formation
of national policyrdquo64 It would reason then that the primary effort for collection and
analysis would fall upon the offices of the Director of Intelligence however McDonald
explains that ldquoSome of the most valuable information contributed by the OSS was
the tactical or field intelligence often provided by the Special Operations Branch (SO)
teams working behind enemy lines with resistance groupsrdquo65
Before the COI initially lacked any organization or doctrine for conducting
clandestine and covert operations it would learn from and copy a great deal of the
infrastructure already established by the British SOE and MI6 This relationship benefited
both countries For the US the benefits included intelligence training and the vast
experience base that the British had in place with MI6 and then with the SOE For the
British the US brought money and resources that the British were able to benefit from
64McDonald 93
65Ibid
37
due to its close relationship The British at first were protective of their operations and
agents in occupied Europe fearful that the Americarsquos inexperience could harm their
current operations Over time these relationships strengthened although there were still
some problems depending on political constraints or desires that one country had over the
other
Special Operation Branch
Lawrence McDonald provides an excellent description of the Special Operation
(SO) Branch ldquoThe foremost concern of SO teams and missions was liaison with the
resistance providing weapons and supplies to the indigenous underground forces
training them and planning and coordinating their sabotage with Allied operationsrdquo66
The SO was also responsible for some collateral activities including gathering
operational and strategic targeting information and for recovering downed Allied
aircrews67 SO took place in Europe and Asia with operational patterns and methods for
supporting resistance movements much like the SOE As Michael Warner highlights
ldquoThis emphasis on guerrilla warfare and sabotage fit with William Donovanrsquos vision of
an offensive in depth in which saboteurs guerrillas commandos and agents behind
enemy lines would support the armyrsquos advancerdquo68
66Ibid
67Ibid
68Michael Warner The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000) available from httpwwwciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet accessed on 4 December 2005
38
It was this common ground between the British SOE and US SO that allowed the
first bonds to be strengthened The Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff decided
that the SOE and SO would operate together an idea from which were born the
Jedburghs
The Jedburghs
The Jedburghs dropped into Belgium Holland and France on or after the
Normandy invasion to support the Allied efforts as they moved inland The Jedburghs or
Jeds were specially-trained three-man teams composed of different nationalities to assist
local resistance forces during the final weeks of German occupation Of the three men on
team one was an enlisted radio operator with the other two being officers One of the
officers was native to the country the team deployed to while the other officer was either
British SOE or American OSS The Jeds primary task was to disrupt ldquoGerman
reinforcements to the Normandy beachhead or the Allied landings in southern
Francerdquo69 They also provided valuable tactical intelligence and were able to provide
guides and security for advancing Allied units The efforts of the Jedburghs and their
resistance counterparts may have kept eight German divisions from reaching the
beachheads70
The after-action review of the Jeds highlight the growing pains in the evolution of
the integration of SO and SOE supported resistance groups within the overall
conventional campaign plan A common problem was the need to be infiltrated into the
69Lt Col Will Irvin (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 (New York NY PublicAffairs 2005) 236
70Ibid
39
operational area weeks or months early to capitalize on the full potential of resistance
groups Infiltrating on or after D-Day did not allow the Jeds enough time to train their
counterparts or develop intelligence networks Because of this they were not able operate
at their optimum capability The flow of information was lacking and timeliness of
reports affected ground operations Senior conventional commanders were unaware of
the capabilities of the Jedburghs and their resistance groups for providing accurate
intelligence guides and interpreters These operations generated so much information
that ldquothe SFHQ [Special Forces Headquarters] message centers were receiving so much
traffic that it became impossible to analyze act upon and disseminate informationrdquo71
Despite these difficulties the Jedburgh concept was as Lewis point out ldquoahead of its
time One of the more important successes for the Jedburgh operations was the
psychological impact the teams had on the citizens of occupied France [as] harbinger
of liberation and a call to actionrdquo72 With the end of the European theater the OSS was
redeployed to the Pacific and continued their exploits
Detachment 101
The most famous OSS detachment of the Burma campaign was Detachment 101
or DET 101 The Burma campaign centered around lines of communications such as the
Ledo-Burma Road which had to be secured in order to allow the Allies to reestablish
contact with the Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek The mission was to gain
control of the Ledo-Burma Road from Japanrsquos 15th Army and was as noted by Warner
71Lewis 62
72Ibid 65-66
40
ldquothe closest to realizing General Donovanrsquos original vision of lsquostrategicrsquo support to
regular combat operationsrdquo73
Donovan had been trying to establish an OSS presence in the China-Burma-India
theater and proposed a plan for using agents to sabotage Japanese rear areas Donovan
took advantage of General Stillwellrsquos lack of ldquonordquo as an opportunity to get operations
going before Stilwell could stop the mission The mission was given to a Captain who
had served under Stillwell After standing up DET 101 rushing through training of
which little was applicable to the Far East DET 101 arrived in theater only to find
Stillwell waffling on DET 101rsquos employment Stilwell did not have the resources to drive
the Japanese from the area around the north Burmese city of Myitkyina which was
hampering air operations and the completion of an alternate route Stilwell gave DET 101
the mission
After some difficulty getting into the area of operation DET 101 infiltrated and
began to transition from sabotage to guerrilla warfare but more importantly were able to
develop an extensive intelligence network that provided Stillwell with valuable
intelligence74 With less the 120 Americans at any one time DET 101 had recruited over
11000 native Kachins75 By the end of DET 101rsquos mission they rescued over 400
downed pilots and provided eighty percent of 10th Air Forcersquos targets76 In addition
73Warner
74David W Hogan Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II (Washington DC Department of the Army 1992) 99-106
75Warner
76Hogan 111
41
DET 101 had successfully developed an indigenous force that fixed two Japanese
divisions during the final Allied offensive in Burma77
The Operational Groups
Operational Groups (OGs) were developed to conduct behind-the-lines
commando operations and were composed of US Army soldiers General Donovanrsquos
concept for the OGs was based on his ldquobelief that the rich ethnic makeup of our country
would provide second generation American soldiers with language facility who could
be parachuted into enemy occupied territory to harass the enemy and encourage local
resistance organizationsrdquo78 They were designated to fight in uniform and had no
connection to the OSS thus protecting them from being shot as spies if captured79
The OGs were organized fifteen man detachments with two officers and thirteen
noncommissioned officers They were all trained in physical conditioning land
navigation night operations explosive training weapons light infantry tactics and hand
to hand fighting Two member of the OG received additional training one as a radio
operator and the other as a medic Depending on their likely area of operation the OGs
received additional training such as ski training special parachute training or maritime
training80
77John Prados Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf (Chicago IL Elephant Paperbacks 1996) 16
78Art Frizzell ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg overviewhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
79Warner
80Frizzell
42
The first operational OGs were infiltrated from Algiers into Italy to work with the
local resistance and harass the German 90th Panzer Division Other OGs were parachuted
into Italy to help recover US prisoners as well as a blind drop into Italy to give the Italian
command the details of the Armistice and cease actions against the Allies As the
Germans withdrew some resistance elements were liberated and were ready to return to
the North to harass the withdrawing Germans By mid-1945 when the Germans
surrendered there were ten OG missions totaling 120 men in northern Italy81 For up to
two weeks the OGs and their resistance elements governed their areas until Allied
military governments arrived During this time OGs had to maintain order and receive
drops of humanitarian items for the local populous82
In 1943 another OG was stood up at the request of the Greek government in exile
to assist Greek guerrillas hiding in the mountains The mission for this OG which arrived
in Greece in April of 1944 was to delay and harass 80000 German troops withdrawing
from Greece The British also participated and provided the Raider Support Regiment83
The OG operations in Yugoslavia were one part of the British-led Allied efforts in
Yugoslavia The purpose for the Allied effort in Yugoslavia was conducting as many
offensive operations as possible against German troop concentrations The operational
base for this operation was a British garrison which included British Commandos a
Raider Support Regiment some naval and air support and a number of Yugoslavian
81Albert Materazzi ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwww ossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
82Ibid
83ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
43
resistance units all together totaling several thousand84 There are three categories of OG
missions in Yugoslavia mainland operations reconnaissance patrols and island
operations The mainland operations for OSS were unsuccessful and stopped after only
two failed attempts85
The island operations began in January of 1944 and were aimed at conducting
raids to inflict casualties on German garrisons and outposts These OG raiding parties
were at time large and combined efforts with other British and partisan units For
example the first mission against Hvar Island had 33 OGs 150 British Commandos and
75 partisans while others such a linear ambush on Korcula Island in April of 1944 had a
party of only seven OGs and a few partisans The size of this operation grew especially
when aimed at relieving pressure on Tito during German offensives One extremely large
operation included the British Commandos a British Infantry battalion the Raider
Support Regiment and an undisclosed number of partisans with OG units A and B
serving as flank security and liaison between the partisans and the British artillery The
mission succeeded in drawing the Germans from along the coastal regions as well as
another German division from the interior and is regarded as successful in relieving some
pressure from Titorsquos partisans86
84ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavian html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
85ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo available from httpwwwossog orgyugo-mainlandhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
86ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
44
The French OG group was originally composed of 200 volunteers The French
OGs were ready to deploy at the completion of their training in the fall of 1943 but they
were delayed because military leaders in conventional commands were reluctant to
deploy OGs for lack of understanding of their employment In an attempt to remedy this
misunderstanding the French OGs participated in field training exercises with airborne
units from Fort Bragg North Carolina in December of 1943 The French OGs were still
in limbo conducting environmental training in Virginia and Colorado when they
received orders attaching the groups to the Seventh Army in Algiers They arrived in
Algiers and were forced to wait once again until finally being assigned missions in
support of the Normandy invasion
There were two operational groups deployed into France the French OG and the
Norwegian OG The French OG flew from England nearly a month after the invasion
parachuted into France and operated north of Lyons The Norwegian OG flew from
Algiers and operated in southern France south of Lyons The total number of teams
deployed to France was twenty all with the missions to cut enemy lines of
communications attack vital enemy installations organize train and boost the morale
and efforts of local resistance elements and to gather intelligence for the advancing
Allied Armies
The Norwegian OG which was stationed and trained at Camp Hale Colorado
was made up of 100 officers and noncommissioned officers In December 1943 the
Norwegian OG was moved to England and was assigned to the OSS SO Headquarters
subordinate to the Scandinavian Section As was previously stated the Norwegian OGs
deployed to France and upon the liberation of France the Norwegian OG was reduced in
45
size As the Norwegian OG was being drawn down Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces
became concerned with 150000 German troops that were in northern Norway that
intelligence estimated would be moved south to defend Germany SHAEF wanted to
ensure that the Germans were forced to take sea routes so the OGrsquos mission would be to
disrupt the rail lines The commanding officer for the operation split the OG into two
units identified as NORSO I and NORSO II for Norwegian Special Operations87
NORSO I consisted of three officers and thirty enlisted soldiers and was the main
effort NORSO II consisted of one officer and eighteen enlisted soldiers and was to serve
as the reserve prepared to reinforce NORSO I if necessary or to complete a separate
mission The NORSO I target was identified as the Nordland Railway more specifically
the Grana Bridge plus lesser targets along the line The operation was plagued with
numerous difficulties from weather to deadly plane crashes however it did go on in less
than optimal conditions They successfully destroyed two and a half kilometers of track
disrupting the troop movements A month later they were told the Germans had
capitulated and NORSO I and II then participated in the disarmament procedures and
performed policing duties in the areas of German surrender88
Finally the Chinese OG mission was much different than what the OG missions
in Europe The mission entailed ldquothe formation training equipping and attachment of
87ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
88ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
46
American personnel for twenty Chinese Commandosrdquo89 This mission was generated
from an agreement that Chinese divisions led by veteran Americans would be more
effective than a regular Chinese division The agreement was made in January of 1945
and the nucleus of the OG personnel for this mission was the recently redeployed French
OG elements of the Norwegian OG and a third OG that had conducted amphibious
operations in Burma Additional officers and enlisted men were brought from
replacement centers in the US raising the total number of US personnel to 160 officers
and 230 enlisted all under the command of a lieutenant colonel Each Commando unit
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 8th 9th and 10th consisted of 154 Chinese and 19 Americans The
units were task organized into a headquarters three rifle sections a 60 millimeter mortar
section a light machine gun section and a demolition section In the initial plans it was
thought that there would be 3000 Chinese troops but due to physical readiness only a
quarter were available In the eighth week training cycle the Commandos showed major
improvements and for the Chinese being selected and becoming a Commando were
achievements to be proud of Seven of the Commando units conducted operations with
hostilities ending before the others could be stood up and trained90
Office of Strategic Services Summary
The OSS had gained valuable experience first from the British who taught
Donovanrsquos agency everything they had learned conducting clandestine and covert
operations in the first years of the war The partnership between SOE and OSS helped the
89John Hamblet ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo available from httpwwwossog orgchinahtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
90Ibid
47
OSS get through its fits and starts Donovanrsquos vision made the OSS an organization that
at the end of the war was an organization with an extremely effective strategic
intelligence and unconventional warfare capability Donovan had opened the Pandorarsquos
Box of irregular warfare for which the politicians and conventional military leaders were
not ready and contributed to the OSS being disbanded at the end of the war However
with the post-World War II environment looming it would not take very long before it
became evident that these types intelligence and unconventional warfare operations
would become the norm of covert activity during the Cold War
Demobilization of the different resistance groups throughout the world ran the
gambit of no demobilization and just turning the elements over to the reinstalled
government to collecting up arms and returning the resistance members back to their preshy
war lives Will Irwin provides a glimpse into the minds of the exile governments with
respect to resistance elements and their post-war status in this case the French ldquoSpecial
Force Headquarters received [a] Jedburgh message requesting a parachute drop of
arms and ammunition to the Paris resistance But de Gaullersquos London-based
commander of the [French Forces of the Interior] postponed the operation in hopes
that the arrival of Allied forces in the city would preclude the need to further arm the
Paris resistance because it was predominantly communistrdquo91 The fear at the time was
that the communist resistance would take over Paris with French commanders ldquoanxious
to install a provisional noncommunist government in the city as soon as it fellrdquo92 This is
91Irwin 145
92Ibid
48
exactly what they did after Paris was liberated ldquo[wasting] no time in occupying
government buildings and establishing political controlrdquo93
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
OSS operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements Like
the SOE the OSS operations were shaping operational supporting the advance of Allied
troops Finally the operational approach was combat with each element conducting
combat advising or in the case of the operational groups conducting their own operations
As with the SOE some resistance groups they received direct support in the way of
weapons and supplies but no combat advisory support The operational groups were
somewhat different in their application more commando-like and probably low-
visibility versus clandestine in nature Depending on their mission profile they may have
conducted unilateral direct action missions special reconnaissance or working with
resistance elements conducted unconventional warfare
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations
Introduction
At the conclusion of the war President Trumann who disliked Donovan and his
agency gave the order to disband OSS immediately The SO capability was dropped the
Research and Analysis Section went to the State Department and everything else went to
the War Department Because the Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy had saved SI
and X-2 this would constitute a peacetime intelligence service McCloy then named this
93Ibid 145-6
49
organization the Strategic Services Unit which was then confirmed by directive from the
Secretary of War Michael Warner explains that the Executive Order also directed the
Secretary of War to ldquoliquidaterdquo OSS activities that were not in line with national
interests Seeing that most of the work that Donovan had accomplished with respect to
developing an irregular warfare capability all of it was counter to the conventional-
minded military leaders who were happy to get rid of this threatening concept for war
that they considered ungentlemanly anyway
Within two years a new organization no longer in the War Department was
established by the President and Congress initially called the Central Intelligence Group
The CIG became the CIA with signing of the National Security Act of 194794 The 1947
Act gave the CIA the responsibility for coordinating all intelligence activities within the
US government including gathering analyzing and distributing intelligence products A
follow-on act in 1947 provided the CIA with ldquoconfidential fiscal and administrative
proceduresrdquo which was appropriate for the kind of work the CIA was conducting95
With the end of World War II the Cold War was beginning to emerge and
communist ideology was beginning to spread In this conflict in which both sides had
nuclear weapons they could threaten each other but could not resort to war as had been
known in the past Now the US and the USSR jockeyed for position and began to give
covert support to governments and indigenous resistance forces to influence countries
and regions in order to expand control One of the tools that had been looked upon by the
94Warner
95Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd) 2
50
regular military with such disdain supporting resistance forces would now play a major
role in the Cold War
Common sense told many politicians within the Truman administration that
covert actions should be the responsibility of the military Their argument seemed easy-shy
during World War II the military was responsible for covert and clandestine operations
such as deception psychological operations subversion sabotage ldquobehind-the-linesrdquo
unconventional warfare to support indigenous elements raids and even assassinations
However as was mentioned earlier the uniformed leaders within the Pentagon did not
want to get stuck with a controversial and unorthodox method of warfare and
enthusiastically gave it up to the CIA ldquo[JCS] apparently was fearful of what it perceived
to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in subrosa [sic] cloak-andshy
dagger activitiesrdquo96 Although the CIA retained control of the peace time operations they
had wanted not only the covert paramilitary activities during peacetime as stipulated by
National Security Council 102 in June 1948 but in wartime as well97
However in the early 1950s the DOD would once again develop a capability to
support indigenous resistance forces with the stipulation that it would only do this in
wartime leaving the peacetime operations to the CIA The Special Forces were born and
prepared for operations behind enemy lines in Germany should the Cold War turn hot It
is also notable that the term chosen by the CIA for support to insurgency was
96Bank 161
97Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Psychological and Unconventional Warfare 1941-1952 (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2002) 69
51
ldquoparamilitary operationsrdquo which John Prados defines as ldquoThe type of clandestine
operations that creates forces resembling regular military unitsrdquo98
The Three Disciplines
The ldquothree disciplinesrdquo within the CIA are intelligence collection and analysis
counterintelligence or counterespionage and covert action99 As William Daugherty
points out the first two operations collection and counterintelligence are meant to be
clandestine in other words ldquothe actual operations their participants and their results are
intended to remain hidden from viewrdquo100
Intelligence collection is the collection of raw intelligence data from any number
of sources including human and technical means This is the classic form of intelligence
work and the primary role of the CIA and the one that it is most famous for This raw
intelligence is then analyzed and is provided to the policy makers as ldquofinishedrdquo
intelligence upon which they can make decisions regarding threats or intentions of other
nations or non-nation actors
Counterintelligence or counterespionage functions to deny an advantage to its
adversaries This can be done in numerous ways such as turning foreign intelligence
agents to provide information on their fellow spies or ensuring adequate protections are
in place to protect sensitive information Both collection and counterintelligence share
many of the same techniques and requirements
98Prados 17
99Daugherty 9
100Ibid 12
52
The final discipline and the one that applies to paramilitary operations is covert
action Daugherty defined covert action simply as ldquoinfluencerdquo--influencing foreign
audience in the case of paramilitary operations by using covert military operations
preferably through a third-party actor101 Covert action results are visible but the
perpetrator cannot be identified Daugherty further highlights the application of this to the
US government by quoting the 1981 Executive Order 12333 ldquospecial activities [covert
operations] conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are
planned and executed so that the role of the United States government is not apparent or
acknowledged publiclyrdquo102 Thus with respect to paramilitary operations the indigenous
or surrogate force provides the ldquofrontrdquo to the operations and keeps the action or influence
from being directly attributable to the US As Daugherty explains ldquothe covert aspect is
that the lsquosponsorrsquo (ie the government behind the program) remains hidden leaving the
observers to believe that the actors are indigenous citizens acting entirely of their own
volition in events that are local in originrdquo103
Interestingly the first official definition of covert action was articulated by
President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in Executive Order (EO) 12333 The definition reads
[S]pecial activities conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly and functions in support of such activities but which are not intended to influence United States political processes public opinion policies or media and do not include diplomatic
101Ibid
102Daugherty 13
103Ibid
53
activities or the collection or production of intelligence and related support functions104
Other key points of Executive Order 12333 are that intelligence activities are not
primarily covert action covert actions must not be conducted within the US and ldquoit
explicitly and unambiguously assigns all peacetime covert action missions to the
CIArdquo105
The executive order has worked well enough that it was amended into a federal
statute in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991 The federal statute defines covert
action as
[A]n activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political economic or military conditions abroad where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly but does not include (1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence (2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities106
One of the confusing points of Executive Order 12333 is the use of the words special
activities versus covert action At first glance they seem similar but they do not have as
much in common as it would seem Daugherty explain that included in the special
activities rubric are
[P]rograms such as training of foreign military security and intelligence services [which] have been especially important to presidents not because the programs seek change in a hostile regime but because they work to preserve a friendly regime107
104Ibid
105Ibid 13-14
106Ibid 14
107Ibid 15
54
So now that these two definitions show that covert action and special activities are related
but not the same thing Unlike covert actions special activities ldquoare not intended to
produce any overt event to influence an audience but instead are operations that are
meant to remain clandestine in all aspectsrdquo108 With respect to this thesis paramilitary
operations are thus covert unconventional warfare operations to influence such as
overthrowing a government and special activities are clandestine foreign internal defense
operations which could be used when a foreign government did not want overt US
support and training
Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability
Since the end of World War II the US military has not had the lead role in any
covert action programs aimed at supporting indigenous forces The military supported
CIA covert operations at times such as providing training teams for operations
According to Bob Woodward Special Forces soldiers accompanied CIA paramilitary
operatives into Northern Iraq before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom which provides
an example of once easily definable peace or war lines of separation becoming harder to
discern109
William Daugherty provides a list of reasons why DOD has not been able to
conduct peacetime covert operations
DOD does not possess nor has it ever possessed the statutory authority to conduct classic covert action except
108Ibid 16
109Bob Woodward Plan of Attack (New York NY Simon and Schuster 2004) 208-209
55
During a war formally declared by Congress
During any period covered by a report to Congress under the War Powers Act
When DOD is specifically tasked by the President because it is determined that the military is more likely to achieve particular objectives
CIA already has existing infrastructure to conduct covert actions such as its fleet of civilian-registered aircraft and maritime vessels
CIA already has recruited agents third-country nationals to carry out the required operational and support activities in foreign countries
DOD covert action forces would either have to give up protection of their Geneva Convention rights or any covert actions that were discovered they could be considered an act of war
CIA already has a presence in many of the 190 sovereign nations in the world which give them long operational reach support and clandestine infrastructure
CIA has almost instantaneous reaction or response time in any crisis situation to include the capability to travel in alias under civilian cover and with non-US travel documents
CIA has a core of career covert action specialists in each of the four broad categories of covert action ndash propaganda political action paramilitary and information warfare110
The obvious advantages currently go to the CIA however these same capabilities could
be developed within DOD with help of the CIA who is reluctant to share any of their
ldquotoysrdquo as Daugherty alludes to throughout his book
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations
CIA covert operations were widespread throughout the Cold War While some of
these programs remain classified there are a few notable paramilitary actions and special
110Daugherty 62-69
56
activities that provide an interesting comparison to Special Forces operations during this
same period As William Daugherty points out
From Trumanrsquos time through the Nixon years covert action programs served only two purposes they were intended either to stop the spread of Communism to countries that were not under the Soviet thumb by strengthening or supporting whatever regimes were in power or to weaken Communist or Communist-supported government by lsquoeroding their internal supportrsquo111
From the Nixon years on covert actions began to be used against non-Communist
targets
Eastern Europe 1949-1956
With the Soviet occupation of the Eastern European satellite nations the US and
Britain began a subversion campaign almost immediately The Ukraine was the first
country the MI6 and CIA actively sought to raise anti-Soviet resistance capabilities In
1945 MI6 was able to reestablish contact with the leader of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists When the State Department agreed to proceed with support the
mission was given to the foreign intelligence bureau and the Office of Policy
Coordination responsible for paramilitary operations112
The Office of Policy Coordination started numerous training camps in West
Germany to train Eastern eacutemigreacutes from the Soviet Union and Ukraine The first group of
agents was infiltrated into western Ukraine by parachute in 1949 The long-term plan was
to infiltrate 2000 agents throughout the Eastern Bloc countries The mission of the agents
111Ibid 124
112Peter Harclerode Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden (London Cassell and Company 2001) 5-7
57
was to report Soviet preparations for offensive operations against the west and support
resistance organizations to disrupt any Soviet operations against the west113
The CIA also infiltrated agents into Lithuania which in 1944 had 30000
resistance members of the group the ldquoForest Brotherhoodrdquo Latvia was thought to have
14000 well-armed fighters114 However none of these operations was able to keep an
agent alive for any period of time after his infiltration most succumbing to immediate
arrest or death For the CIA and Secret Intelligence Service no goals had been reached
despite a large expenditure of money and resources Daugherty offers these observations
on why these operations failed
[U]nrealistic goal of lsquorolling backrsquo Communist domination organizers mistakenly assumed that eacutemigreacute groups could be made secure from Soviet penetrations [and] Soviet military and intelligence units conducted formidable counter-insurgency operations in the target countries relentlessly hunting down the eacutemigreacute guerilla force Last these operations were betrayed by [a] KGB double agent115
Albania offered another opportunity for use of unconventional warfare this time
aimed at the regime of Enver Hoxha ldquothe dictator and secretary-general of the Albanian
Communist Partyrdquo116 The goal of this combined British and US effort as Peter
Harclerode explains ldquowas to wrest the country from the Sovietrsquosand assist the
establishment of a democratic pro-Western governmentrdquo117 The concept for this
113Ibid
114Ibid 21
115Daugherty 127
116Harclerode 35
117Ibid
58
operation was to instigate an uprising to overthrow Enver Hoxha with operations taking
place from 1949 to 1954 For this operation 250 Albanians were recruited by the exiled
Albanian National Council which would comprise Company 4000 and led by an
American officer Three platoons were raised and trained in varying levels of guerrilla
warfare and then parachuted into Albania Although able to infiltrate members of the
company most were quickly captured or killed by the effective internal security
apparatus of the Hoxha regime By August of 1954 it was decided to disband Company
4000 and dismantle the training school located in Western Germany The remaining
recruits were demobilized and then were dispersed throughout the US Britain and other
locations A CIA officer is quoted by Peter Harclerode providing significant insight into
the lessons learned from this operation
The Albanian operation was the first and only attempt by Washington to unseat a Communist regime within the Soviet orbit by paramilitary means It taught a clear lesson to the war planners Even a weak regime could not be overthrown by covert paramilitary means alone118
The activities against the Soviet Union and its satellite states in the early years of
the Cold War provide and interesting beginning to post-World War II unconventional
warfare All of these efforts were plainly unconventional warfare aimed at using
resistance organizations to disrupt of Soviet expansion and if war broke out to act as
shaping operations forcing the commitment of Soviet combat power to rear area security
These operations were all indirect using training areas in third-party countries and then
infiltrating these elements into the target country unilaterally with the radio being the
only connection to their CIA handlers
118Ibid 71
59
Korea
Korea provides a great example of two simultaneous unconventional warfare
efforts one by the CIA with a cover name of Joint Advisory Commission Korea and
other efforts by of conventional military officers with the most prominent effort being
that assigned to the Guerrilla Division of the 8240th Army Unit The conventional
military cadres had little or no formal unconventional warfare training or experiences119
These efforts were not coordinated until a year into the conflict when the Far East
Command which in 1953 would be redesignated as United Nations Partisan Infantry
Korea established the Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea to
synchronize these unconventional warfare efforts120 Before the establishment of the
Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea a single officer Colonel John
McGee who had worked with the Filipino guerrillas in World War II was assigned to the
Far East Command G-3 Operations as the sole member of the Miscellaneous Division
His initial task was ldquoto prepare a staff study on the possibilities of conducting guerrilla
operations against the North Koreans using some of the refugees from the northrdquo121
The CIArsquos mission was to ldquostep up pressure on the Chinese Communists by
supporting guerrilla movements on the mainland of China especially along lines of
communicationsrdquo122 The CIA successfully established a network of covert intelligence
119Ibid 179 and Col Ben S Malcom (ret) and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea (Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996) xi
120Malcom and Martz 14-15 27
121Ibid 15
122Major General (ret) John K Singlaub Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century (New York NY Summit Books 1991) 181
60
bases along the North Korean coast from which Korean agents could be dispatched
However the operation was never able to establish any significant resistance networks
The 8420th was able to establish a substantial resistance effort primarily due to
location and a large refugee population of willing supporters but the overall effects are
arguable since the resistance was rewarded for their actions based on their own reports
truthful or not Part of the operational constraints was that no American could operate in
North Korea due to the political risks which made it difficult for the American cadres to
exploit the efforts of the resistance123 In some cases there were documented successes
by American advisors such as then 1st Lieutenant Ben Malcolm that had special
permission or ldquoclandestinelyrdquo went ashore not having the consent of their higher
headquarters
The motivation for much of the resistance effort was the belief that the United
Nations would conduct a counteroffensive against the Chinese As Ben Malcolm
explains the assumptions being that when the offensive happened ldquothe partisans would
prove invaluable at their harassment and interdiction of enemy forces It was classic
unconventional warfare strategy using the partisans as an auxiliary to conventional
forces on the attack helping to shape the battlefieldrdquo124 An example of the effectiveness
of some of these units such as the 8086th Army unit which in less than a year claimed to
ldquohave conducted 710 operations killed 9095 and wounded 4802 and captured 385rdquo
123Ibid 183
124Malcom and Martz 17 61
and in the process destroyed thirty-seven road bridges twelve railway bridges and
twelve tunnels and seven hundred weaponsrdquo125
Demobilization of the partisan forces was called Operation Quicksilver and called
for the ldquointegration of the partisans into [Republic of Korea] unitsrdquo126 As Ben Malcolm
explains ldquoQuicksilver called for those partisans with at least two years of service to be
honorably discharged and given their uniforms mess gear four blankets two hundred
pounds of rice and transportation to their city of choice in South Koreardquo127 Those opting
to enlist for two years got the same incentives plus an extra one hundred pounds of rice
For their transfer from American to South Korean control the US only required them to
ldquoturn in their weapon and for some unexplained reason their canteen cuprdquo128 However
less than half of the 22000 partisans disappeared in a year and as Ben Malcolm
surmises some went south and some ostensibly went north with some elements still
requesting support by radio ldquowell after the armistice was signedrdquo129
The unconventional warfare operation in Korea can be summarized as covert
shaping operations aimed at disrupting the Chinese forces in support of the larger United
Nations mission thus these operations were shaping operations With regards to the
operational approach of these operations they are mostly direct support with only a few
examples of sanctioned combat advisory support
125Ibid 26
126Ibid 190
127Ibid 190-1
128Ibid 191
129Ibid
62
Tibet
In the case of Tibet five years elapsed between the beginning of the Chinese
invasion and the Tibetan uprising in 1956 President Eisenhower authorized covert
support to the unorganized ldquoTibetan internal resistance movementrdquo130 The intended
effect was ldquoto confront thwart or harassrdquo the Chinese Communist government The
program began in 1956 and ended by President Richard Nixon thirteen years later in
1969131 While eventually unsuccessful certain aspects of this covert action are
intriguing Beginning in December of 1956 an operation codenamed ST CIRCUS
commenced with a small groups of handpicked Tibetan resistance members were
exfiltrated out of the country by the CIA and taken to different training bases in the
Pacific and later America132 As Peter Harclerode explains
At a training camp established by the CIA the six Tibetans underwent four and a half months of extensive instruction in guerrilla warfare In addition to small arms they trained in the use of light support weapons including the 57mm recoilless rifle and 60mm mortar and well schooled in tactics fieldcraft map-reading navigation demolitions mine-laying sabotage booby traps and first aid They also received instruction on in intelligence-gathering skills and in [long range encrypted communications]133
These teams also learned to parachute and establish drop zones for receiving personnel
and equipment134 These teams were then parachuted back into Tibet to organize
130Daugherty 144
131Ibid
132Harclerode 348-9
133Ibid 350
134Ibid
63
resistance forces Although the program generated mixed results the concept was a
proven means of conducting indirect support
The program was shut down in 1974 after relations with China had warmed
during the Nixon administrations The Tibetans were left feeling ldquodiscarded by the
United States which no longer needed them now that they had served their purposerdquo135
There was no demobilization instead the US ldquoterminatedrdquo support not only paramilitary
assistance but political recognitions and support in the United Nations and the financial
support to the exiled government136
This indirect unconventional warfare program was also covert and unique in that
the majority of the training took place in the continental US at different locations but all
under extreme secrecy This program was a strategic shaping operation aimed at
indirectly influencing China
Cuba
Almost immediately after President Kennedy entered the White House in January
of 1961 he authorized the CIA to begin to conduct covert operations against the Castro
Government One element of this extensive covert action program that included
psychological operations and sabotage was a paramilitary effort This paramilitary
infamously known as the ldquoBay of Pigsrdquo would end in tragedy and failure The plan was
135Ibid 393
136Ibid
64
to conduct an invasion of Cuba using exiled Cuban resistance members and overthrow
Castro The training for this operation took place in a Guatemala a third-party country137
Regardless of the failures of this operation it does provide an interesting
unconventional warfare case study for analysis With respect to the operational signature
it may have begun as a covert operation but the supporting efforts such as ldquoair strikes
from US Navy and Marine squadrons on nearby aircraft carriersrdquo would have definitely
changed the signature and thus the deniability of US involvement As to whether this was
a decisive or shaping operation its failure masks the true intent--a decisive overthrow of
Castro This operation began as an indirect unconventional warfare effort with training
conducted in a third party country and arms and equipment provided by the CIA Had
the air support been provided as promised then this operation would have taken on a
direct or combat role depending on the level of naval air involvement While this was a
definite covert action gone bad operation it still provides a great lesson in the strengths
and weaknesses of unconventional warfare
Laos
The operation in Laos in the 1950rsquos and 1960rsquos is often incorrectly identified as
unconventional warfare when in fact it is more correctly a covert action in this case a
special activity to increase the Laotian government ability of defeating internal and
external threats138 Richard L Holm a former CIA officer describes the situation in
Laos ldquoLao communist forces known as the Pathet Lao (PL) were challenging the
137Daugherty 155
138Major Dean S Newman ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
65
governmentrsquos Royal Lao Army (FAR) throughout the country Although badly organized
and poorly trained and equipped the PL was bolstered by support from North Vietnam
whose units were call the VC (Vietnamese Communists)rdquo139 As Richard Holm explains
ldquoThe CIArsquos paramilitary efforts in Laos were divided roughly along geographic linesrdquo
north central and southern Laos and involved working with different tribal and ethnic
groupsrdquo140 Although the Pathet Lao threat to the Laotian government for the US
government greater concern was the North Vietnamese use of eastern Laos to support its
efforts in South Vietnam
The initial programs were under the auspices of the US Agency for International
Development and its advisors before becoming a covert action to ldquobolsterrdquo the Laotian
government141 Special Forces were also involved in White Star initially under the
command of Lieutenant Colonel ldquoBullrdquo Simons legendary for leading Son Tay Raid--the
prisoner-of-war rescue mission--some ten years later142 In the original program twelve
teams were under the auspices of the Agency for International Development Project
Evaluation Office later renamed the Military Assistance Advisory Group The effort was
initially called Operation Ambidextrous later to become Operation White Star143
139Richard L Holms ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 available from httpwwwodcigov csistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet accessed on 18 June 2005
140Ibid
141Ibid
142Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo available from httpwwwspecialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet accessed on 22 January 2006
143Ibid
66
The program ended in earnest in July of 1962 the Geneva negotiations on Laos
were signed stipulating that all foreign military personnel had to withdraw from Laos
The White Star advisors left the country as required while less than fifty of an estimated
10000 North Vietnamese soldiers passed through international observer checkpoints144
The Laotians were not demobilized but continued to receive covert support from the
CIA However with the end of the Vietnam war all US efforts in Laos ended and the
tribes who continued to fight were decimated many becoming refugees in Thailand
The operations in Laos were covert foreign internal defense shaping operations in
the larger context of the growing problems in South Vietnam However the White Star
operation was never able to successfully deny eastern Laos to the North Vietnamese It is
arguable whether the operational approach was combat or direct support but based on the
fact that Special Forcesrsquo suffered one killed-in-action and four missing in action during
this operation there were obviously combat advisor taking place145
Vietnam
In early 1961 President Kennedy tasked the CIA with initiating covert operations
against North Vietnam wanting to ldquoturn the heat up on Hanoi and do to them what they
were doing to the US ally in South Vietnamrdquo146 The real problem was that putting agents
and developing resistance forces in the North was that it was a denied area which some
144Charles M Simpson Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years (Novato CA Presidio Press 1983) 90
145Specialoperationcom
146Richard H Shultz Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi (New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999) xiii
67
considered to be a tougher environment than the Soviet Union China East Germany and
North Korea147 Over the next two years the President grew increasingly impatient with
CIA operations in North Vietnam and in 1963 turned over a majority of the programs to
military control in what was called ldquoOperation Switchbackrdquo This was a world-wide
replacement of CIA leadership of clandestine paramilitary operationsrdquo148
While there were many CIA programs developed a majority were turned over to
the military to run early in 1963 However one program that was an interagency effort to
defeat the insurgency called the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development
Support (CORDS) was established in 1967 Later to the ldquoRevolutionaryrdquo would be
changed to ldquoRuralrdquo but the programs goals did not--pacification of South Vietnamese
rural areas149 The CIArsquos role in CORDS was what initially was known as the
Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program later to be renamed Phoenix150 The
aim of this portion of Phoenix was to identify and neutralize the Viet Cong insurgent
underground organizational infrastructure in the rural towns and villages The Phoenix
programs emphasized four areas to attack the Viet Cong infrastructure (VCI) district
intelligence centers to identify VCI neutralize verified members of the VCI by either
capturing killing or conversion established rules for prosecuting VCI and placed the
147Ibid
148Simpson 138
149Major Ross Coffey ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
150Dale Andrade and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
68
emphasis of these efforts on local militias and police instead of the military In a four
year period beginning in 1968 Phoenix neutralized 81740 Viet Cong
The operations in North Vietnam proved that it is difficult to create a resistance or
insurgency from scratch especially in a denied area The programs were covert indirect
unconventional warfare operations with the goal of shaping the strategic environment
The Phoenix program was a low-visibility counterinsurgency program thus a foreign
internal defense It also was a shaping operation for the larger objective of CORDS
pacification plan and its operational approach was to empower local militias and police
so it was direct support
Nicaragua
The covert actions Finding for Nicaragua were signed by President Carter within
two weeks of the Sandinistas National Liberation Front rise to power in 1979151
However Carterrsquos Finding entailed nonlethal covert action only It was not until
December of 1981 that President Reagan would signed a Finding authorizing ldquocovert
funding and assistance for the anti-Sandinista rebelsrdquo better known as the Contras152
The initial funds and authorities provided funds to Argentina ldquoto organize and train a
five-hundred-man anti-Sandinistas unit for deployment in the Central American region
but with a proviso that the funds could not be utilized to overthrow the Nicaraguan
governmentrdquo153
151Daugherty 190
152Ibid 203
153Ibid 204
69
By the end of the program a second Finding authorized operations in Nicaragua
ldquocosting close to $100 million per year and the five-hundred-member Argentine unit was
transformed into a multi-thousand Nicaraguan rebel forcerdquo154 As Lynn Horton
highlights
[I]t is possible that 30000 or more Nicaraguans fought at some point with antigovernment forces making the contras [sic] one of the largest armed mobilizations of peasants in contemporary Latin American history In addition thousands more peasants participated in civilian collaborator networks that provided contra [sic] troops with food shelter and vital military information155
Despite the controversy in the US with the program the war ended in 1990 after the
Sandinistas National Liberation Front was defeated in the election that year The forces
were not demobilized by the US with some reverting to insurgency as necessary over the
next decade This controversial but successful program was a covert unconventional
warfare operation that ended up being a decisive operation through indirect support from
the different agencies in the US government
Afghanistan and the Soviets
The US had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of a Soviet-supported third-
world country Vietnam When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the Carter administration
saw an opportunity to return the favor As President Carterrsquos National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested ldquoWe now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its
Vietnamrdquo156 The Carter administration had already started covert operations months
154Ibid
155Lynn Horton Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 (Athens GA Ohio University 1998) xii
156Daugherty 189
70
before the Soviet invasion including a propaganda campaign indirect financial aid to
insurgents direct financial assistance to Afghan eacutemigreacute groups lethal and nonlethal aid
and offered training and support157 Afghanistan would prove to be the largest CIA
operation in history and one of the most successful As Anthony Joes highlights CIArsquos
success ldquoIt was perhaps the most satisfying experience the Americans ever had with
guerrilla warfarerdquo158
The Afghan mujahideen were much weaker militarily and politically than the
Vietnamese had been and they were facing a superpower that was not squeamish about
using brutal tactics against insurgents The other element that the mujahideen lacked was
unity of command and effort which was a huge obstacle but was partly due to the tribal
and warlord nature of the society
The amount of money the US expended was initially relatively small around 80
million dollars a year but this jumped to 470 million dollars a year in 1986 and to 700
million dollars by 1988159 The only major obstacle that the CIA faced was in its dealing
with the Pakistani intelligence service that favored four Afghan groups and ensured that
the majority of weapons over 70 percent were given to these groups However the
Pakistani Intelligence Service took an active roll in training and supporting the Afghans
to include numerous schools which trained over 80000 mujahideen by 1988160 The
157Ibid 188-189
158Anthony James Joes America and Guerrilla Warfare (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000) 279
159Ibid 310
160Harclerode 536
71
British were also very active throughout Afghanistan supporting the CIA efforts161 The
CIA also took advantage of the situation and was able to capture or recover some of the
Sovietrsquos premiere equipment including a Mi-24 attack helicopter162 The real coup was
the introduction of the Stinger missile which accounted for nearly 500 aircraft in 1987163
By 1988 the situation was untenable for the Soviets they had lost domestic support for
the war The Afghan mujahideen had succeeded in defeating the Soviets Once again the
US did not demobilize these elements although some effort was made to track the usage
of Stingers and to have unused Stingers turned back in
The efforts in Afghanistan provide a good example of coalition unconventional
warfare with numerous nations providing some type of support to the covert efforts
Afghanistan was an operational and strategic decisive operation removing the Soviets
from Afghanistan but also from the world scene leading up to the fall of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War The operational approach varied depending on the
nation some providing indirect monetary and political recognition of the effort to other
efforts that were direct support in nature providing training and sanctuary outside the
borders of Afghanistan Finally there were some combat advisory efforts by the US
Pakistan India China and other countries from the Middle East in the form of
intelligence agents and paramilitary advisors164
161Ibid 540
162Ibid 543-544
163Joes 311
164Harclerode 512
72
Central Intelligence Agency Summary
After a rough Post-World War II period the CIA proved to be a world class
intelligence organization From the first British visionaries who saw the potential of
unconventional warfare it has been proven time and again to be a viable method of
warfare It has been used to defeat the US and the Soviets and it continues to haunt the
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan Based on recent experience as a nation covert
paramilitary operations are now proven foreign policy tools
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Doctrinal Developments
In 1951 Lieutenant Colonels Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann were given the
charter to develop a DOD unconventional warfare capability by then chief of the Army
Psychological Warfare Brigadier General Robert McClure Both men understood
unconventional warfare due to their first-hand experiences in World War II working with
indigenous resistance organizations Lieutenant Colonel Bank was an OSS veteran
having supported resistance groups in France as a member of a Jedburgh team and later
in China165 Lieutenant Colonel Volkmann had organized the US Forces in the
Philippines--Northern Luzon ldquoone of the largest and best organized guerrilla operations
on Luzonrdquo166 He had also written the first Army Field Manual (FM) on guerrilla warfare
FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla [sic] Warfare that was published just
165Bank 13
166Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet accessed on 3 May 2006
73
as he and Bank began to develop the concepts for unconventional warfare and Special
Forces167
The combined experiences of Bank and Volckmann ran the gambit of
unconventional warfare one conducted clandestine operations in an environment where
he could speak the language and blend in while the other in a environment that he could
not blend into one trained in clandestine unconventional warfare the other with no
formal unconventional warfare training one in a combination urban and rural
environment the other in a rural jungle one as a member of a highly trained team the
other as part of an ad hoc organization and one conducted unconventional warfare
operation of generally short duration the other conducted long-term unconventional
warfare and finally one had experience using unconventional warfare to support
conventional operations while the other had experience conducting unconventional
warfare operations as the only effort until late in the war
However even with all of their experiences their most difficult task was to battle
conventional mindsets such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff that disliked the idea of
unconventional warfare As Bank explained ldquoIt apparently was fearful of what it
perceived to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in sub-rosa cloak-
and-dagger activities in the event of disclosurerdquo168 This contrasted to the new CIA that
wanted sole responsibility for unconventional warfare not just covert paramilitary
activities during peacetime as stipulated by National Security Council 102 in June
167Lieutenant Colonel Russell Volckmann US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare (Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951)
168Bank 161
74
1948169 Bank and Volckmann set out to establish an organization that could conduct UW
based on an operational element later the Operational Detachment Alpha which they
envisioned as ldquoa cadre that would mushroom into a huge guerrilla force actually a
phantom armyrdquo170
The same confusion that surrounds unconventional warfare today also haunted
Bank and Volkmann as Bank explains
Neither of us liked the fact that so much terminology was being bandied around concerning behind-the-lines operations The terms unconventional warfare clandestine operations unorthodox warfare and special operations were being used interchangeably171
When they refined the operational term they called it Special Forces Operations which
had a sole purpose of supporting resistance movements The operational concept
envisioned by Bank and Volckmann was
to infiltrate by air sea or land deep into enemy-controlled territory and to stay organize equip train control and direct the indigenous potential in the conduct of Special Forces Operations Special Forces Operations were defined as the organization of resistance movements and operation of their component networks conduct of guerrilla warfare field intelligence gathering espionage sabotage subversion and escape and evasion activitiesrdquo172
The focus on organizing resistance movements in this concept was Bank and Volkmannrsquos
attempt to separate Ranger-style missions from what they envisioned as Special Forces
missions
169Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins (Washington DC National Defense University 1982) 69
170Bank 166
171Ibid
172Ibid 179
75
This was important too since Bank and Volkmann had been under pressure from
the beginning to combine these two forces together This combined unit was supposed to
conduct all aspects of behind the line operations from unilateral raids and sabotage to
support to guerrilla movements Bank explains the differences ldquoThe Rangers were
strictly short-term shallow-penetration units whereas [Office of Strategic Services] had
long term much more complex strategic capabilitiesrdquo173 The Special Forces Operations
concept was meant to separate the purposes of Special Forces and Rangers Over the next
fifty years Special Forces added many of the missions which Bank and Volkmann fought
so hard to keep from the Special Forces charter However in times of budget cuts and
force reductions Special Forces had to adapt to the times to maintain the force and
relevance Vietnam and the Cold War would provide the impetus for developing new
capabilities that were not in the original charter developed by Bank and Volckmann
In the 1960rsquos as the Cold War began to be fought by communist-backed
revolutionists insurgents and guerrillas President Kennedy called upon the men who
trained to fight as guerrillas to now fight against these threats in an effort to contain
communist expansion in other words ldquofight fire with firerdquo President Kennedy set out in
earnest in the early 1960rsquos through a series of letters to the Army to get the military as a
whole to change the conventionally-bound military mindset to adapt to this new type of
political-insurgent warfare Thomas K Adams explains the reaction of the conventional
military to the request of the President
President Kennedy called for ldquoa wholly new kind of strategy a wholly different kind of force and therefore a new and different kind of military trainingrdquo What he got was business as usual but with [unconventional warfare] trimmings
173Ibid 144
76
regardless of the wrapper the contents of the package remained conventional warfare Describing the Armyrsquos reaction to Kennedyrsquos program Maxwell Taylor remembered feeling that ldquoall this dust coming out of the White House really isnrsquot necessaryrdquo It was ldquosomething we have to satisfy but not much heart went into [the] workrdquo He sounded a long standing theme when he added that he felt the Special Forces were not doing anything that ldquoany well-trained unitrsquo couldnrsquot dordquo174
Thomas Adams also noted as a result of these letters what occurred was ldquoan attempt to
fit the existing military structure to the counterinsurgency problemrdquo175 There were
numerous studies and conferences on topics such as special warfare counterinsurgency
and guerrilla operations during this time However the outcome of all these studies was a
limited counterinsurgency capability based on conventional light infantry tactics with no
change in understanding of the complex cultural and political elements of the problem176
In the 1960s despite the problems with the conventional military establishment
accepting its role in counterinsurgency Special Forces proved highly successful in
fighting insurgencies and guerrillas throughout the world In Vietnam for example
Special Forces programs such as the Civilian Irregular Defense Group and Mobile Strike
Forces were highly successful operations using indigenous or surrogate forces the
Montagnards and Chinese Nungs respectively Doctrine began to catch up to the
counterinsurgency actions with subtle shifts in 1965 to include discussions of Special
Forcesrsquo roles in counterinsurgency in FM 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques
and FM 31-21 Special Forces Operations
174Thomas K Adams US Special Operations in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare (Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998) 70
175Ibid 73 176Ibid
77
With the addition of counterinsurgency in these manuals the confusion between
counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare began with a mixing of terms One such
example is found in the 1961 FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces
Operations in which a new command structure is introduced called the Joint
Unconventional Warfare Task Force This task force would provide command and
control to operational elements within the theater of operations177 This headquarters
concept was put into practice in 1964 when the Military Assistance Command Vietnam-
Studies and Observation Group was created as a joint unconventional warfare task force
As Thomas K Adams explains that this Studies and Observation group was ldquoresponsible
for special operations in Burma Cambodia Laos North and South Vietnam and border
areas of Chinardquo178 In hindsight including unconventional warfare in the task force name
was probably a misnomer since all of the operations encompassed in the region were
either overt or covert foreign internal defense and special reconnaissance and to a lesser
extent direct action The only unconventional warfare operations during this period were
the failed attempts to establish and support a resistance force in North Vietnam179
In the 1963 version of FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces a new
counterinsurgency unit called the Special Action Force appears180 The Special Action
Force ldquois a specially-trained area-oriented partially language-qualified ready force
177Department of the Army FM 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1961) 14
178Adams 118 179Shultz 3
180Department of the Army FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1963) 1
78
available to the commander of a unified command for the support of cold limited and
general war operationsrdquo181 This Force is build specifically around a Special Forces group
with the mission of ldquoproviding training operational advise and assistance to indigenous
forcesrdquo182 The manual suggested that the Special Action Force be task organized with
ldquocivil affairs psychological warfare engineers medical intelligence military police and
Army Security Agency detachmentrdquo183 Another interesting feature of this organization
as explained in the FM 31-22 is the conventional army brigade-sized backup force As
the manual describes ldquoBrigade-size backup forces are area oriented and designed to back
up a particular [Special Action Force] These forces are committed to an operational area
when the capabilities of the [Special Action Force] have been exceededrdquo184
Charles Simpson III explains the real world application of the Special Action
Forces concept
Four Special Action Forces came into being one on Okinawa built around the 1st Special Forces Group for the Far East (SAFASIA) one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America and tow at Fort Bragg organized around the new 3rd and 6th Groups for Africa and the Middle East In Europe the 10th Special Forces Grouphellipassumed functions much like those of the large [Special Action Forces] but without their resources185
181Ibid 16
182Ibid 20
183Ibid 16
184Ibid 42
185Simpson 69
79
By 1972 the Special Action Force concept had ended with no group ever fully deployed
instead being piecemealed throughout the theaters186 One of the major shortcomings of
the program was the fact that a Special Action Force had to be requested by the
ambassador which was unlikely to be supported by the rest of the country team which
had civilian capabilities that were similar to the SAF This interagency rivalry
significantly reduced the effectiveness and usefulness of the Special Action Force
concept and led to the concepts demise187
A doctrinal shift occurred with the 1969 publication of FM 31-21 Special Forces
Operations which addressed new missions of support for stability operations and
unilateral operations--the precursors of foreign internal defense direct action personnel
recovery strategic or special reconnaissance This manual is still focused heavily on
unconventional warfare with this topic covered in the first nine of eleven chapters
however one chapter devoted to support for stability operations and one to covering the
employment of Special Forces ldquoin additional military operationsrdquo Stability operations in
this manual are defined as
internal defense and internal development operations and assistance provided by the armed forces to maintain restore or establish a climate of order within which responsible government can function effectively and without which progress cannot be achieved188
It also clarifies that unconventional warfare doctrine is ldquonot entirely applicable to overt
stability operationsrdquo and stipulates that
186Adams 100 187Simpson 68-9
188FM 31-21 10-1
80
Many [unconventional warfare] tactics and techniques such as those employed to gain the support of the local population to establish intelligence nets and to conduct tactical operations such as raids and ambushes may be adapted to stability operations189
The manual also describes ldquoadditional military operationsrdquo as ldquounilateral deep
penetrations to conduct reconnaissance surveillance and target acquisition attack
critical strategic targets recovery of friendly personnel in remote or hostile areas and
training of US andor allied personnel in Special Forces operational tactics and
techniquesrdquo190 Also of note is the definition of direct action mission ldquoOvert or
clandestine operations in hostile or denied areas which are conducted by US
[unconventional warfare] forces rather than by US conventional forces or through US
direction of indigenous forcesrdquo191 This is interesting because it denotes difference
between the unilateral direct operations and the use of indigenous forces
Unconventional warfare would continue to be the primary operation and bases for
all the Special Forces field manuals throughout the 1970s Foreign internal defense
emerged in the mid-1970s in Special Forces doctrinal manuals The definition of foreign
internal defense in the 1978 Special Text 31-201 Special Forces Operations is directly
out of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Publication 1 and is defined as the ldquoparticipation by
civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by
another government to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and
189Ibid
190Ibid 11-1
191Ibid Glossary 1
81
insurgencyrdquo192 It also describes a Special Action Force-type organization based once
again on a Special Forces group augmented with ldquohighly specialized skills need to assist
a host country to develop internal defenserdquo193 This special text notes that a augmented
Special Forces group can train advise and assist the host countryrsquos regular or
paramilitary forces as well as compliment or expand the US security assistance efforts of
the country team for short periods of time194
Between late 1970 and 1990 the changes in Special Forces doctrine were not
captured in writing The 1990 publication of FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces
Operations superseded the last FM 31-20 from 1977195 This new manual detailed eight
Special Forces missions and activities unconventional warfare foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism collateral activities and other
special operations activities196 While the definition of unconventional warfare is exactly
the same as today it is still obvious that unconventional warfare is directly related to
ldquoinsurgency or other armed resistance movementsrdquo197 Of note this manual begins to
address the change in insurgent environments from rural based to urban based In
192US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations (Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978) A-1
193Ibid
194Ibid
195Department of the Army FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 20 April 1990) Cover
196Ibid Index
197Ibid 3-2
82
response the manual explains that ldquoglobal urbanization dictates a shift in emphasis from
rural [guerrilla warfare] to all aspects of clandestine resistancerdquo198 This is the first time
in the doctrinal manuals that clandestine operations are discussed with regards to the
urbanization of insurgency
The Gulf War revitalized Special Forces having conducted numerous operations
employing special reconnaissance and coalition support Like many missions coalition
support was a necessary mission with only a couple of options for manning this force-shy
Special Forces was the most qualified In a misguided attempt to keep unconventional
warfare current to the times coalition support operations were added to unconventional
warfare This idea was further explained in the June 2001 FM 3-0520 Special Forces
Operations ldquoThe conventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and
led in varying degrees by SF and US allies represents the newest evolution of UW-related
surrogate forcesrdquo199 The argument could be made that elements of the 10th Special
Forces Group conducted unconventional warfare using Kuwaiti military units that had
fled the Iraqi invasion Although the actual operational impact was small due to the small
size of the ldquofreerdquo Kuwaiti force the civil-political impact of having a Kuwaiti unit help in
liberating its country was huge200 The use of surrogates or ldquosomeone who takes the
place of or acts for anotherrdquo was first addressed in the 1990 version of FM 31-20 in
198Ibid
199FM 3-0520 2-6
200Susan L Marquis Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces (Washington DC Brookings Institute Press 1997) 234
83
response to coalition warfare201 The 2001 FM 3-0520 tries to explain this concept to
prove coalition support is a valid unconventional warfare operation ldquoFrom a US point of
view these coalition forces and resources are surrogates and act as substitutes for US
troops and resources reducing US commitmentldquo202 The manual also highlights that
ldquoconventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and led in varying
degrees by SF and US allies represent the newest evolution in UW-related surrogate
forcesrdquo203
After the Gulf War as evidenced by the emphasis that coalition support was ldquothe
newest evolutionrdquo unconventional warfare was standing on shaky ground within the
Special Forces community204 The general feeling within Special Forces was
unconventional warfare no longer was a viable mission in the post-Cold War
environment and should be relegated to a lesser role or dropped altogether John Collins
highlights this feeling when he wrote ldquoCongress therefore might weigh the advisability
of discarding [unconventional warfare] as a statutory rolerdquo in favor of foreign internal
defense205
In October of 1994 Colonel Mark Boyatt then the Commander of 3rd Special
Forces Group wrote an article in Special Warfare recommending unconventional warfare
201FM 3-0520 2-5
202Ibid 2-6
203Ibid
204Ibid
205John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
84
and the other Special Forces core missions should fall under the umbrella of a new term
unconventional operations206 This concept did not catch on and in fact received some
critical reviews from his contemporaries One of his critics was Colonel Glenn Harned
who explains that a single catch-all mission like unconventional operations would not
allow a Special Forces element to stay proficient in all the skills sets necessary required
to be ldquounconventional operations qualifiedrdquo207
In October of 1998 the Commanding General of the United States Army Special
Forces Command (Airborne) then Major General William Boykin asked for input on the
relevance of unconventional warfare208 Although the results of this question are difficult
to determine from a doctrinal standpoint one of the replies highlights the
misunderstanding abound in the branch In answering this question Commander of the
3rd Special Forces Colonel Gary Jones and Major Chris Tone coauthored an article that
attempted to explain that although unconventional warfare had replaced the term guerrilla
warfare guerrilla warfare was still the primary mission of Special Forces They further
highlighted that ldquoIn the minds of most [sic] [Special Forces] soldiers [unconventional
warfare] doctrine has been oversimplified [Unconventional warfare] is just [foreign
internal defense] in a denied areardquo209 The authors go on to further misrelate insurgency
206Colonel Mark D Boyatt ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
207Colonel Glenn M Harned ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
208Kershner 84
209Colonel Gary M Jones and Major Chris Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 6
85
and guerrilla warfare when they state ldquoThe contrast between the operational
environments of the two unconventional warfare missions are striking [Guerrilla
Warfare] is conducted when our nation is at war insurgency is conducted when our
nation is at peacerdquo210 This article received a lot of positive feedback throughout the
community One supporter said that it ldquomarked the beginning of a [unconventional
Warfare] renaissance in the [Special Forces] communityrdquo211 However retired Colonel J
H Crerer wrote a critical review highlighting the mistakes of the authors for example
ldquoFirst [unconventional warfare] includes [guerrilla warfare] so it would be illogical to
use the terms interchangeably Second and more important [unconventional warfare]
also includes subversion and sabotagerdquo212
In 2000 the United States Army Special Forces Command again broached the
question of unconventional warfarersquos relevance and attempted to refocus the branch on
unconventional warfare to ensure Special Forces relevancy as the Army was concurrently
conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates The end result was a Special Forces
Commandrsquos concept called Unconventional Warfare 2020 Colonel Michael Kershner
summarized the findings of Unconventional Warfare 2020 in a series of articles in the
spring of 2001 that highlighted the confusion with unconventional warfare and redefined
unconventional warfare Colonel Kershnerrsquos explained that the new definition of
unconventional warfare would encompass all of the other core Special Forces missions
210Ibid
211Major Mike Skinner ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare as an SF Missionrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16
212Colonel J H Crerar ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37
86
to include foreign internal defense213 This subtle change to the definition was widely
accepted by the Special Forces branch which had been struggling for years to find a
more definitive description of unconventional warfare that would ensure a ldquonicherdquo
mission that no other military unit could conduct As Colonel Kershner explained in an
interview with Dennis Steele for an article in ARMY Magazine ldquoWe donrsquot want to be
stuck in the past or step into the future in a way that is irrelevant We must focus on
relevant and unique capabilities and [unconventional warfare] is our most unique
capabilityrdquo214
One other major point of departure from the legacy unconventional warfare
doctrine discussed by Kershner was the removal of the seven phases of US-sponsored
insurgency from doctrine Kershner stated that this seven-phases construct was ldquooutdated
[and it was] more appropriate to describe [unconventional warfare] in terms of current
US doctrinal phases--engagement crisis response war-fighting and return to
engagementrdquo215 The theory that US sponsors unconventional warfare in seven phases
emerged in the 1965 version of FM 31-20 Special Forces Operations (the 31-20 series
being the predecessor to 3-0520) However even earlier Russell Volkmannrsquos 1951 FM
31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare provided a similar phasing
213Kershner 84
214Dennis Steele ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article on-line] available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet accessed on 14 May 2006
215Ibid 87
construct in which he discussed ldquoseveral operational phasesrdquo including psychological
preparations initial contact infiltration organization build-up and exploitationrdquo216
Although not part of his suggested phases Volkmann discusses demobilization as
a separate chapter217 The unconventional warfare efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq after 11
September would validate the seven-phased construct However in Afghanistan and Iraq
the phases were compressed due to political constraints and then the tempo of operations
The only phase that was not validated during operation in Afghanistan and Iraq was the
seventh phase demobilization While some resistance elements were demobilized and
returned to society a vast majority continued to serve in the postconflict phases The
seven-phase construct had been developed based on the experiences of World War II in
which there was a rapid demobilization of forces at the end of the war The new
experiences with postconflict operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may force a change in
this final phase of unconventional warfare as it transitions to foreign internal defense218
Less than six months after Kershnerrsquos articles were published the events of 11
September transpired By the summer of 2003 unconventional warfare had been
successfully conducted in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and had been used to
support the conventional offensive operations against Saddam Hussein In each of these
efforts unconventional warfare would transition to foreign internal defense of an
intensity and scale that had not been encountered by US forces since Vietnam The events
of 11 September had one more effect the results of the Unconventional Warfare 2020
216FM 31-21 37-38
217Ibid 227-232
218Authorrsquos own experiences from Northern Iraq April 2003
88
studies were lost and not incorporated into the 2003 version of FM 3-05201 Special
Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations The first paragraph in the manual describes
the aspects of unconventional warfare explaining ldquoThe intent of Unites States (US)
[unconventional warfare] operations is to exploit a hostile powerrsquos political military
economic and psychological vulnerability by developing and sustaining resistance forces
to accomplish US strategic objectivesrdquo219 It also began to capture some of the lessons
learned from Operation Enduring Freedom the most important being that unconventional
warfare operations may be supported by conventional operations instead of the more
traditional role unconventional warfare supporting conventional operations As the
manual explains ldquothere are times when introduction of conventional forces does not
take the main effort away from unconventional operations in fact the conventional
forces may support the unconventional forcesrdquo220 The newest FM 3-05201 is currently
in final unreleased draft form and is classified SECRET This will be the first
unconventional warfare manual that has been classified in its entirety In the past a
classified supplemental pamphlet supplemented the unclassified manual such as the 1961
version of FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations with a classified
supplemental FM 31-21A
In mid-January 2004 the ldquoCody Conferencerdquo was held in Cody Wyoming ldquoto
identify concepts that will be necessary for shaping the future of Army Special
219FM 3-05201 1-1
220Ibid 1-3
89
Forcesrdquo221 The twelve members of this conference included a number of senior active
duty and retired Special Forces officers as well as representatives from acclaimed
members of the media academia and private sector222 With the war on terrorism as the
focal point the conference studied the current conflict and worked to define Special
Forces role against this new threat Major General Lambert highlights that ldquoSpecial
Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare which includes counterinsurgency and guerrilla
warfare Special Forces should be chartered to monitor and combat insurgencies even
though other US forces will move on to new prioritiesrdquo223 One of the recommendations
of this panel was the development of a ldquostanding deployable Special Forces
Headquartersrdquo that would be capable of conducting ldquosustained guerrilla warfarerdquo224
These last two points highlight the continued confusion of unconventional warfare
guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency that reaches even the highest levels of Special
Forces
The conference did develop a number of recommendations in addition to the just
mentioned deployable headquarters including the need for a ldquoglobal environment of
seamless information- and intelligence-sharing [improving] coalition allied and
surrogate intelligence and operational capabilitiesrdquo and ldquo[Conducting] area-denial
221Major General Geoffrey C Lambert ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20
222Ibid 27
223Ibid 23
224Ibid
90
area-control and remote-area operations either directly or with partnersrdquo225
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense would obviously play a significant
role in establishing this global capability by empowering the coalition partners to defeat
or disrupt their own internal and external threats as well as remove unfriendly regimes
that could be providing sanctuary for ones enemies as the Taliban did for Al Qarsquoida
Major General Lambert also mentions the importance of Special Forces as a ldquoforce
multiplierrdquo that ldquoconserves conventional military force for the main effortsrdquo226
In 1990 FM 100-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict the first
manual specifically written for low-intensity conflict was published in a joint effort by
the Army and Air Force The writers explain that ldquoThis manual fills a void which has
existed in the Army and Air Force for some time It complements warfighting doctrine by
providing operational guidance for military operations in [low intensity conflict] from
which implementing doctrine can be developedrdquo227 FM 100-20 also described an
organization called the Foreign Internal Defense Augmentation Force which could
augment or support the Security Assistance Organization in ldquosituations that range from
conditions short of open hostility to limited war They may locate strategically and vary
in size and capabilities according to theater requirementsrdquo228 This augmentation force if
225Ibid 22
226Ibid 24
227Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force Field Manual 100shy20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 5 December 1990) 1-1
228Ibid A-7 91
very similar to the previous described Special Action Forces of the late 1960s and early
1970s
The implementing doctrine for FM 100-20 took the form of FM 31-20-3
published four years later and titled Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and
Procedures for Special Forces The manual provided an extensive ldquohow tordquo handbook
for foreign internal defense The concepts of indirect direct and combat support to
foreign internal defense was not portrayed in this manual or its parent manual FM 100shy
20 The 1996 joint foreign internal defense manual JP 3-071 was reverse engineered
from the Special Forces manual However the joint manual was much more detailed and
had more depth
The family of Army manuals FM 100-5 and FM 3-0 Operations manuals have
only provided a basic description of foreign internal defense and to a much lesser extent
unconventional warfare The 1993 version of FM 100-5 combines support to insurgencies
and counterinsurgencies in three paragraphs total229 The 2001 version of FM 3-0
provides a much more in-depth description of foreign internal defense than the previous
FM 100-5230 However support to insurgencies is covered in three sentences in the
ldquostability operationsrdquo chapter explaining in essence that it takes a National Command
Authority (term no longer used) for Army forces to support an insurgency that Army
229Department of the Army FM 100-5 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 13-7 to 13-8
230Department of the Army FM 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 9-8 to 9-9
92
special operations forces are best suited for this supporting role and that conventional
forces can support these operations if necessary231
The manual addresses special operations in a supporting role only ldquo[Special
operations forces] can reinforce augment and complement conventional forces In
war [special operations forces] normally support the theater campaign or major
operations of the [joint force commander]rdquo232 Finally the FM 3-0 describes the
battlefield organization as ldquothe allocation of forces in the [area of operation] by purpose
It consists of three all-encompassing categories of operations decisive shaping and
sustainingrdquo233 Decisive operations ldquoare those that directly accomplish the task assigned
by the higher headquarters Decisive operations conclusively determine the outcome of
major operations battles and engagementsrdquo234 FM 3-0 further defines shaping
operations as ldquo[creating] or [preserving] conditions for success of the decisive
operationsrdquo235
While FM 3-0 does not directly relate these operations to unconventional warfare
or foreign internal defense examples exist that provide ample evidence that these
operations can be decisive and shaping With regards to unconventional warfare
operations supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 were
decisive and resulted in the overthrow of the Taliban while the operations in Northern
231Ibid 9-10
232Ibid 2-8
233Ibid 4-22
234Ibid 4-23
235Ibid
93
Iraq supporting the Kurdish resistance fixed thirteen of twenty Iraqi divisions in the
North shaping the battlefield for the conventional forces invading from the south An
example of a Special Forces foreign internal defense effort that was decisive is the direct
support to the El Salvadoran military to defeat the Farabundo Marti National Liberation
Front (FMLN) and a shaping operation is the success Special Forces had in South
Vietnam developing indigenous counterinsurgency forces in support of the larger
conventional campaign None of these examples have found their way into the joint or
Army doctrine The new FM 3-0 is currently in un-releasable final draft form
Much like the Army operations doctrine the 2001 JP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint
Operations takes only a paragraph to describe unconventional warfare calling it support
to insurgency This paragraph reads
Support to Insurgency An insurgency is an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a legally constituted government through the use of subversion and armed action US forces may provide logistic and training support to an insurgency but are not normally involved in the conduct of combat operations236
The current draft of the new JP 3-0 now called Joint Operations has added one
component to the above definition ldquoThe United States may support an insurgency against
a regime threatening US [sic] interests (eg US [sic] Support [sic] to the Mujahadin [sic]
resistance in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion)rdquo237 While the both publications
capture some elements of US support to insurgency such as training and logistics support
it has obviously not been updated since Operation Iraqi Freedom based on the final
236Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 10 September 2001) V-13
237Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) VII-9
94
statement that US forces ldquonormallyrdquo donrsquot conduct combat operations However the
description differs from the description found in FM 3-0 Operatioins in one respect it
provides a real-world example of unconventional warfare describing US efforts to
support the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets
Another important concept in the soon-to-be published Joint Publication 3-0
provides a new operational ldquophasing modelrdquo shown in figure 1 which has some
applicability to this study238 This model is important to this study because it provides the
first doctrinal recognition that any campaign is going to have multiple phases occurring
simultaneously and that operations do not stop at what has previously called conflict
termination--the end of combat operations For this study it will be important to
determine how the seven phases of US sponsored unconventional warfare fit within this
phasing construct This conceptual models has six phases--one phase covering peacetime
engagement and five the phases of an operation
238Ibid IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfare conceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
95
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfareconcepts approved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model
Phase 0-Shape-(Prevent and Deter) This is the normal peacetime engagement
environment in which the US forces are conducting operations to support the theater
security cooperation plan
96
Phase 1-Deter-(Crisis Defined) This is the first step in resolving conflict by
demonstrating military capabilities and the resolve of the US and it partners in an attempt
to deter an opponent from acting or forcing the US to react
Phase 2-Seize the Initiative-(Assure Friendly Freedom of Action and Access to
Theater Infrastructure) During this phase joint forces are applied to the problem to set
the condition for the dominate phase and may include military action and diplomatic
efforts
Phase 3-Dominate-(Establish Dominate Force Capabilities and Achieve Full
Spectrum Superiority) This is the phase that is focused on ldquobreaking the enemyrsquos will for
organized resistance or in noncombat situations control of the operational environmentrdquo
Phase 4-Stabilize-(Establish Security and restore services) This phase is required
when there is ldquolimitedrdquo or ldquono functioning legitimate civil governing entity present The
joint force may have to perform limited local governancerdquo
Phase 5-Enable Civil Authority-(Enable authorities and Redeploy) During this
phase the US joint forces support the legitimate government and more importantly it
marks the military end state and redeployment239
The new JP 3-0 also highlights that the ldquoStabilizerdquo phase may characterize the
transition from ldquosustained combatrdquo to ldquostability operationsrdquo It also rightly explains
ldquoStability operations are conducted as needed to ensure a smooth transition to the next
phase and relieve sufferingrdquo240 However the model does not provide a description of
how to identify this transition The importance of this graph will become apparent during
239JP 3-0 Joint Operations IV-33 to IV-37
240Ibid IV-36
97
the analysis portion of this thesis especially with respect to phasing unconventional
warfare and the transitions between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
Other documents are available to provide some insight into the future of Special
Forces doctrine with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense in
lieu of these soon-to-be-released doctrinal manuals These are the 2004 National Military
Strategy the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and finally the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement These three documents may hold the keys to
future unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
The 2004 National Military Strategy identifies six capabilities required for the US
to win decisively ldquoconventional warfighting unconventional warfare homeland
security stability and postconflict operations countering terrorism and security
cooperation activities [italics-authorsrsquo emphasis]rdquo241 This statement has enormous
implications for Special Forces in the future since three of these capabilities are Special
Forces-specific and are tied directly to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review is another important document with
respect to the future of unconventional warfare One of the Quadrennial Defense Review
decisions is to ldquoFurther increase [Special Operations Forces] capability and capacity to
conduct low-visibility persistent presence missions and a global unconventional warfare
241Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategy of the Unites States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow (Washington DC Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2004) 13
98
campaignrdquo The key point here is the idea of a ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo
and determining exactly what that means242
The term ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo is used in the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement but is not defined The posture statement does
define unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo243 These definitions are not supported by current joint definitions of
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense adding to the overall confusion The
posture statement identifies five missions that will ldquohelp establish the conditions to
counter and defeat terrorismrdquo unconventional warfare psychological operations foreign
internal defense special reconnaissance and civil affairs244 It is interesting that direct
action and counterterrorism are not mentioned in this list of operations since these two
operations are the major capability that the Special Operations Command provides to the
overall military effort245 Not addressing these terms may be an indicator that current
studies on unconventional warfare are pointing to direct action and counterterrorism
operations against non-state actors and their infrastructure as being unconventional
242Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
243United States Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 5 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8-06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
244Quadrennial Defense Review Report 1 see glossary for definitions
245FM 3-0520 2-1 see glossary for definitions
99
The history of Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine provides a window to the past The history of unconventional warfare doctrine is
plagued with confusion from the beginning From vague definitions to mission creep the
concepts of supporting insurgencies found in the Special Forces unconventional warfare
doctrine has been proven since 11 September The current attempt to change the
unconventional warfare doctrine to align with the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo is
not a new concept either and is the direct result of the vagueness of the unconventional
warfare definitions This idea is reinforced by studying foreign internal defense doctrine
which provides by far the most clear and concise definitions and doctrine
South Vietnam
The confusion over unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense reached
its climax in Vietnam Michael McClintock explains in terms of guerrilla warfare
(unconventional warfare) and counterinsurgency (foreign internal defense) ldquoThe
confusion of guerrilla warfare with counterinsurgency was in evidence from the
inceptions of the American effort to wage counterinsurgency in Vietnam What is
extraordinary is that very little thought appears to have gone into this distinctionrdquo He
suggests that ldquothe [Special Forces] generally went about the task of counterinsurgency as
if engaged in guerrilla operations behind enemy linesrdquo246
Regardless of the confusion the Special Forces programs were easily among the
most productive in the entire war effort The main Special Forces efforts were with the
246Michael McClintock Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 (wwwstatecraftorg 2002) available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet accessed on 21 February 2006
100
Civilian Irregular Defense Group program the Mobile Guerrilla Forces and Mike
Forces Another effort that is sometimes confused with unconventional warfare was the
cross-border operations conducted by the Studies and Observation Group which utilized
surrogates such as Chinese Nungs and turned former Viet Cong guerrillas in what
would more precisely be called special reconnaissance The nearly decade-long Civilian
Irregular Defense Group as Charles Simpson highlights ldquoinvolved thousands of
Vietnamese civilians millions of dollars and approximately 100 camps spread out from
the Demilitarized Zone to the Gulf of Siamrdquo247 This program unlike the Strategic
Hamlet Programs did not relocate villages but trained them to defend their own villages
which is captured by its original name--Village Defense Program248 While originally
defensive in nature it later evolved into an active defense sending out combat patrols as
early warning as well as interdicting Viet Cong or North Vietnamese units when these
villages were located in strategic locations such as astride to enemy lines of
communications
Another successful program that grew out of the necessity to have a quick
reaction force to react to Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacks on the Civilian
Irregular Defense Group camps was the Mobile Strike Forces better known as ldquoMike
Forcesrdquo The Mike Force was originally established in 1965 and formed from a battalion
of Chinese Nungs which is a tribal group originally from the Chinese and North
Vietnamese border The tenacity of these fighters had endeared them to the French and
247Simpson 95
248Ibid 99
101
were raised into ldquoNung Divisionsrdquo by the French and were settled into enclaves in South
Vietnam249
A similar program to the Mike Force was created called the Mobile Guerrilla
Force ldquoto conduct guerrilla warfare in the vast stretches of enemy-controlled territory
outside areas of operations of CIDG Campsrdquo250 An average Mobile Guerrilla Force was
made up of one Mike Force Company and a reconnaissance platoon As Charles Simpson
notes ldquoThe concept was to infiltrate these company-sized forces usually by foot and to
operate against the enemyrsquos lines of communications usually branches of the Ho Chi
Minh Trailrdquo251
All of these programs were without a doubt foreign internal defense missions
despite their ldquoguerrilla-like naturerdquo These indigenous forces were developed into
specialized but irregular units and capabilities all in an effort to defeat the Viet Cong
insurgents and disrupt North Vietnamese main force resupply and movements This was a
shaping effort for the overall US effort and was also overt It consisted of combat
support with Special Forces not only advising but actually commanding and leading
these units
North Vietnam
The Military Assistance Command Vietnam Special Observations Group was
established in 1963 with the task to pick up where the CIA had failed to conduct
249Ibid 120
250Ibid 124
251Ibid 125
102
operations in Laos and North Vietnamrdquo252 The Studies and Observation Group had four
principle covert missions under OPLAN 34A to insert and develop agent networks to
establish a fabricated resistance movement and misinformation campaign to conduct
maritime interdiction along the coast of North Vietnam and to conduct cross border
reconnaissance operations in Laos253 While considered the largest covert unconventional
warfare program since World War II the eight-year program from 1964 to 1972 had
mixed results At one end of the spectrum were the five hundred agents that upon
infiltration were neutralized or turned by the North to the successes in 1968 when the
North Vietnamese government began to fear the growing subversion However the US
policy makers feared a destabilized North Vietnamese government and for all intents and
purposes shut the programs in North Vietnam down once the Hanoi had been persuaded
to begin negotiations254 The most interesting aspect of this program was the use of
deception to make the North think a resistance was active The most noteworthy of these
efforts were the kidnapping of North Vietnamese citizens and exposing them to the fake
resistance organization known as the Sacred Sword of the Patriots League then returning
them to report to the information to their government
This was a covert unconventional warfare program and strategic shaping
operation While it was unsuccessful establishing an actual resistance the Sacred Sword
of the Patriots League was an interesting method that qualifies as an example of indirect
252Shultz xiii
253Ibid x-xi
254Ibid 330-331
103
support by using North Vietnamese citizens to unwittingly spread the rumor of the fake
resistance organization
El Salvador
Special Forces operations in El Salvador were a successful example of foreign
internal defense to help the military defeat the FMLN While this was an exceptional
example of how Special Forces could conduct foreign internal defense in direct support
to the El Salvadoran military it is routinely called an unconventional warfare operation
In fact it is identified this way in the manual that governs Special Forces operations FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations The FM 3-0520 explains
[Special Forces] operations in El Salvador during the 1980s are an example of [unconventional warfare as the decisive operation] In this instance [unconventional warfare] operations are conducted during what would appear to all but the [unconventional warfare] participants to be operations to promote peace never progressing through operations to deter aggression and resolve conflict or actual combat255
US direct support foreign internal defense was provided to El Salvador after a rocky
period of diplomatic engagement in which the US cut off economic and military aid due
to El Salvadorrsquos ruthless counterinsurgency operations against the FMLN which included
extensive human rights violations In early 1981 the FMLN had a nearly ten thousand-
man army poised and ready to overthrow the government until President Carter chose the
lesser of two evils and lifted the economic and military sanctions which turned the tide
255FM 3-0520 2-4
104
and allowed El Salvador to thwart the insurgents When President Reagan came into
office he was much more aggressive in his desire to thwart communist expansion 256
While other economic aid was being provided the US military group was allowed
by Congress to have a total of fifty-five personnel assigned to train equip and advise a
military that initially numbered around 12000 and would grow to nearly forty-two
thousand troops over a four year period257 The Special Forces advisors were part of the
Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams (OPATT) were also
restricted from conducting any direct combat operations Each OPATT team consisted of
three individuals assigned to a brigade which it was hoped would lead to better human
rights behavior and combat employment258 As Cecil Bailey highlights ldquoFor nearly eight
years OPATTS cycled through the brigades each one extending the progress of the
proceeding teamrdquo259 The three-man teams generally consisted of ldquoa combat-arms major
preferably with an [Special Forces] background and two [Special Forces nonshy
commissioned officers] or warrant officerrdquo260
The OPATTS were also not allowed to conduct combat operations with their
counter parts As Cecil Bailey notes lsquoThe restrictions against US military members
accompanying units on operations was especially onerous to the advisors who often
256James S Corum and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003) 329
257Ibid 333
258Cecil E Bailey ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
259Ibid
260Ibid 21
105
cited the restriction as affecting not only their relationship with their counterpart but also
their professional credibilityrdquo261 Cecil Bailey highlights the accomplishment of the
OPATTs ldquoContemporary studies evaluating the US military role in El Salvador often
praise the brigade advisers as being the leading contributors to combat effectiveness
improved human rights performance and professional behavior supporting constitutional
democratic valuesrdquo Considering that a few more than 140 Special Forces OPATT
advisors were employed during this conflict from 1985 to 1992 and were able to advise
forty battalions 40000 soldiers is impressive262 The best measure of effectiveness of
this foreign internal defense program comes from an FMLN commander Joaquin
Villallobosrsquo when he explained that ldquoputting American advisers in the brigades was the
most damaging thing that happened to them during the war He believed that the
adviserrsquos influence on the [El Salvadoran military] made them more professional and less
abusive [denying the FMLN] much of its earlier propaganda advantage and
recruiting appealrdquo263
Analysis of this conflict clearly shows that this was not unconventional warfare
but instead foreign internal defense conducted overtly and in direct support to the El
Salvadoran military although years later it would become clear that many of these
advisers were conducting combat advisory missions as well The OPATT advisory
program was the only military program conducted with no other conventional military
units participating thus making this a decisive operation
261Ibid 24
262Ibid 28
263Ibid 27
106
Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan
The operations in Afghanistan after 11 September provide a window into the
future of unconventional warfare The DOD had not been involved in an unconventional
warfare campaign of this magnitude since the Korean War The interoperability between
the CIA and special operations was unprecedented as well The preparation phase
happened from the moments after 11 September until the first CIA elements began to
infiltrate into Afghanistan which included political preparations for coalition support and
assistance with airfields and over flight rights as well as preparing the international
community and the American population for the armed response to 11 September The
CIA then established initial contact or reestablishing contacts from previous efforts in
Afghanistan Due to the compressed time schedule numerous Special Forces Operational
Detachment-Alphas infiltrated concurrently with the CIA paramilitary teams and rapidly
organized built-up and employed their Afghan counterparts264 The Special Forces and
CIA paramilitary worked in concert The Special Forces employed the Afghans guerrillas
in concert with US airpower to produce overwhelming combat power that outmatched the
Taliban At the same time the CIA subverted the Taliban by turning many of the
Talibanrsquos units through fear of destruction or through other incentives the most popular
being monetary ldquorewardsrdquo for changing sides Buying loyalty brought a whole new
meaning to the often used ldquoby with and throughrdquo is literally ldquoBUY with and throughrdquo
The Taliban was overthrown in less than two months with the interim
government of Hamid Karzai being established in mid-December This marked the shift
264CPT (now Major) Glenn Thomas conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
107
from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense as efforts transitioned to protect
the new government and its legitimacy over the coming months while at the same time
developing an internal security capability to disrupt or defeat future Taliban and Al
Qarsquoida threats This effort continues today
Until the transition this was initially a clandestine effort to infiltrate into
Afghanistan then transitioned to low-visibility operations The Special Forces
unconventional warfare operations became a decisive operation although this was not the
original plan in which they were to support the introduction of conventional forces This
was also an example of the first large-scale unconventional warfare operation utilizing
Special Forces in combat advisory approach since the OSS operations in World War II
The Afghans were not demobilized to a large extent but instead were used for
some time as militias supporting the Special Forces until they were transferred to national
control or sent home Later in the foreign internal defense operations the remaining
militias were replaced by Afghan Army units and finally disbanded or demobilized but
unlike the doctrinal seventh phase demobilization this took place sometime after the
conflict ended Once the conflict transitioned to the postconflict and unconventional
warfare transitioned to foreign internal defense the signature became overt and all
efforts by Special Forces became a supporting effort to the larger conventional
headquarters The operational approach had remained combat support with the goal
being to return to peacetime engagement and only a direct or indirect operational
approach necessary
108
Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines
Operations in the Philippines after 11 September were another component of
Operation Enduring Freedom campaign Referred to as Operations Enduring Freedom-
Philippines the mission was to support the Philippine governmentrsquos counterinsurgency or
counterterrorism efforts to defeat the Abu Sayyaf an extremist-Islamic insurgent group
with ties to Al Qarsquoida Although a classic foreign internal defense mission the actual
mission statement for the post-11 September counterinsurgency operations in the
Philippines uses unconventional warfare as the operational term
On order in support of Operation Freedom Eagle FOB 11 conduct[s] [unconventional warfare] operations in the southern Philippines through by and with the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] to assist the GRP [Government of the Republic of the Philippines] in the destruction of terrorist organizations and separate the population from those Groupsrdquo265
In this definition the correct operational task should have been foreign internal defense or
even counterterrorism not unconventional warfare This mission statement also did not
help the Philippine government that was telling its citizens that the Special Forces were in
the Philippines conducting counterinsurgency training which it called ldquoExercise
Balikatanrdquo which means shoulder to shoulder Because of the negative political
implications for the elected Philippine government they imposed a US force cap limiting
the number of American personnel involved to six hundred266
To date this foreign internal defense operation has been extremely successful
having forced Abu Sayyaf from the Basilan Island and operations continue to defeat this
265Dr C H Briscoe ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
266Robert D Kaplan Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground (New York NY Random House 2005) 146
109
organization while training the Philippine Army to conduct effective counterinsurgency
operations against the other insurgent groups that are a continued threat to the
government Despite the use of unconventional warfare in the original mission statement
this effort has been a classic overt foreign internal defense mission Since there is no
other US military effort in the country it is the decisive operations at the operational-
level and a shaping operation in the larger context of the Global War on Terror Unlike
the operations in Afghanistan the operational approach in the Philippines is direct
support
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operations with the Kurdish resistance organization in Northern Iraq provide an
excellent example of unconventional warfare supporting conventional maneuver forces It
is even more spectacular that an American Special Forces Group in this case 10th
Special Forces Group (Airborne) numbering 5200 personnel (and not all of these were
inside of Northern Iraq) was able to coordinate the efforts of over fifty thousand Kurdish
Peshmerga fighters and to succeed in fixing thirteen of Saddam Husseinrsquos twenty
divisions along a 350-kilometer front267 Also of interest is the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistanrsquos division-sized attack to regain occupied salient along the border of Iran
which was controlled by the Al Qarsquoida affiliated group called Ansar al Islam The
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan were supported by a Special Forces Company working as
advisors to coordinate indirect fires and close air support
267Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Linda Robinson Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces (New York NY Public Affairs 2004) 299
110
From the night of infiltration the longest since World War II into Northern Iraq
the timeline was once again compressed and Special Forces detachments began to engage
the Iraqirsquos along the forward line of troops known as the green-line268 Combat
operations started quickly because the Kurdish resistance was already a large well-
organized insurgent organization that had been working with the CIA for decades and
only needed minimal training in the lethal aid that was provided by the US269 Although
combat operations along the green-line began within hours of the infiltration the first
major event was the attack on Ansar al Islam which began the morning of 28 March
2003 This two day attack saw Ansar al Islam routed and the Kurdish Peshmerga able to
liberate this salient Once this threat was eliminated the focus turned to the green-line
Ten days later Kirkuk and Mosul fell and operations in the North transitioned to what
seemed like postconflict stabilization Special Forces had successfully conducted the
second unconventional warfare operations in less than two years270 One other lesson of
this conflict was the unprecedented work that Special Forces conducted in concert with
the Kurdish underground Most of the Special Forcesrsquo doctrine is focused on ldquoguerrilla
warfarerdquo versus the clandestine arts of working with undergrounds
It is also interesting to note that 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) was unable
to develop a similar capability with Shia in Southern Iraq However unlike the Kurds the
Shia did not have a self-governed sanctuary like the Kurds and were heavily oppressed
268Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq
269Robert Baer See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism (New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001) 171-213
270Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq
111
by the Iraqi regime A final unconventional warfare effort was attempted using Iraqi ex-
patriots who received only rudimentary training prior to being inserted into Iraq
generally called the Free Iraqi Force271 Part of this force had been trained by the
conventional Army in Hungry prior to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Elements of 5th Special Forces Group were given the task to advise the Free Iraqi Forces
but the general sense among those involved was that the these Iraqis did not have the
training nor did the Special Forces advisors have the relationships with these
counterparts to be an effective force This was an example of a good idea gone bad in
many respects Had Special Forces trained these elements developed strong relationships
with their counterparts and then been inserted with them into Iraq as part of the overall
plan their effectiveness as a political tool might have been increased272
The Special Forces would then be called upon to continue the hunt for former
regime elements At the same time they began to train and operate with the 36th
Commandos These operations were successful but the growing insurgency was not
addressed until it had already grown exponentially Special Forces did everything in its
power to keep from conducting advisory support and were finally let of the hook when
271Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Robinson 275 Some confusion rings the FIF which was used to describe two groups of Iraqi ex-patriots one that was trained in civil affairs in Hungary and another element of soldiers Because they were all commonly referred to as FIF this is the convention that is used here
272Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and numerous discussions with individuals involved with this mission in Southern Iraq from August 2004 to the May 2006 and Robinson 299
112
the conventional military out of necessity established the Multi-National Security
Transition Command-Iraq273
Operations in Iraq had once again proven the usefulness of unconventional
warfare and at the same the limitations In the north during the first few days after
infiltration the Special Forces were operating clandestinely until major combat
operations in the north began This was an example of unconventional warfare shaping
the environment for the conventional decisive operation using combat advisors and
support including coordinated air interdiction Finally there was no demobilization of
Kurdish resistance members by Special Forces however there were inquiries into the
demobilization plan for each of the Kurdish factions274 It became quickly evident that
this was a task of enormous size when the current militias may be needed in the future
Because of this these elements were not demobilized but continued to operate as militias
in support of US Special Forces teams conducting foreign internal defense275
In the south efforts failed to generate a resistance force first because of the preshy
existing constraints on the Shia and second the warrsquos tempo was so fast the requirements
for an unconventional warfare effort to support the invasion were overcome by events
The Free Iraqi Forces were another element of the unconventional warfare puzzle in Iraq
but their contribution even politically was less than stellar Had the correct amount of
273Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) Available from httpwwwmnstci iraqcentcommilmissionhtm Internet accessed on 29 September 2004
274Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq April 2003
275Ibid
113
time energy and Special Forces advisors been elements of this program it might have
been more successful
Summary
The history of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense whether overt
or covert provides an interesting backdrop to the argument of whether these two
missions continue to be viable today and into the future Fifty years after the birth of
Special Forces and before the events of 11 September the decision was made that
unconventional warfare as defined by the Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann was no
longer a viable mission and would never be conducted as envisioned Less than three
years later Special Forces has successfully prosecuted two unconventional warfare
campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan using indigenous forces
instead of massive conventional formations and the other a shaping operation in northern
Iraq using the indigenous Kurds However despite these successes the current debate
focuses on the use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense against non-
state actors in a short-sighted version of the previous fifty year argument
114
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS
With an understanding of the historical background of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine this chapter will answer the secondary questions
What is unconventional warfare What is foreign internal defense and How are they
related Also this chapter will determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are applicable against non-state actors the final tertiary question The
combination of these answers will set the conditions to the answer the primary research
question in chapter 5 are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense as
currently defined applicable to current and future Special Forces operations
To answer these questions a comparison must be made between the results of the
last chapter the historical application of these two missions and their current definitions
The analysis will determine if there is a relationship between the two missions and will
conclude with the future of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
special emphasis on their application in the Global War on Terrorism and against non-
state actors
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare
Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition
In introducing this problem unconventional warfare was defined in chapter 1 to
provide the reader a point of departure for determining if the definition adequately
captured the historical application of unconventional warfare Once again the definition
of unconventional warfare is
115
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion276
An analysis of this definition provides some interesting findings when applied to the
historical examples presented in the previous chapter First the definition is correct that
these are ldquomilitary and paramilitary operationsrdquo They are military operations in that
unconventional warfare is used as an armed tool in place of conventional military
operations or to support other conventional operations
Second it is true that most of these operations have been of long duration
however the length of the operation is dependent on three factors first and foremost is
how much risk the political leadership is willing to take by putting Special Forces
soldiers into the target country earlier than declared hostilities to build an effective
insurgent force second if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or if
it is a shaping operation If it is the decisive operation then it will generally take longer
but if it is a shaping operation the length of time historically has been shorter While
historical examples may show that shaping operations are shorter operations such as the
Jedburghs and more recently 10th Group in Northern Iraq would have been more
effective if infiltration had occurred earlier The two contemporary examples of
unconventional warfare Afghanistan and Iraq validate this theory Afghanistan taking
longer because the unconventional warfare effort was the decisive operation so from
infiltration of teams in early October it took until mid-December to overthrow the
276JP 1-02
116
Taliban In Iraq unconventional and conventional operations started at the same time
with the Special Forces having very little time to organize or build up forces and within
three weeks the Coalition had successfully overthrown a much tougher opponent
Saddam Hussein
Based on current and proposed operational concepts which suggest the US
military can successfully defeat a country like Iraq in days versus weeks unconventional
warfare that begins concurrently with combat operations would not be viable as the
unconventional warfare effort in Southern Iraq demonstrate277 In this concept it will be
imperative to begin unconventional warfare months or weeks earlier than the planned
invasion The final conclusion to be drawn from this is that a time standard on this type of
operation may not be of use any longer however there are serious repercussions for not
giving Special Forces the time required to build an effective insurgency or resistance
Third unconventional warfare encompasses organizing training equipping
supporting and directing of the indigenous insurgent organization Each of these
elements are tasks in and of themselves that can be done indirectly directly or in combat
support roles They could be done indirectly such as conducting all of these tasks in a
third-party country or even through a third-party organization or front Examples of the
direct method may include conducting all these tasks in liberated sanctuary or safe areas
that do not include combat Obviously combat support would involve these tasks being
conducted while in a combat environment with the Special Forces or supporting agency
taking the same risks as the insurgents
277Brigadier General David Fastabend ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo (briefing slides for Joint Forces Command 12 April 2004) slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquo
117
Fourth one often missed component of the definition is the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo
This means that this is not a US-only definition but applies universally In other words
the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo could be Iran Syria China Cuba North Korea and even al Qarsquoida
not just the US In fact Abu Musab al-Zarqawirsquos operations in Iraq are nothing more than
an al Qarsquoida ldquoSpecial Forcesrdquo advisors conducting unconventional warfare by providing
training advising funding and a form of precision targeting--the suicide bomber--to the
Sunni insurgents278 Although not part of the definition this also highlights the
requirement to define the type of external support provided indirect direct and combat
in much the same way foreign internal defense support is described279
Fifth the definition attempts to capture all of the oddities of unconventional
warfare including the tactics--guerrilla warfare subversion and sabotage as well as the
environments and signatures of these operations--direct offensive low visibility covert
or clandestine The final part of the definition discusses ldquointelligence gatheringrdquo and
ldquoescape and evasionrdquo However these two elements apply to every Special Forces
mission and are not unconventional warfare specific This has led to the confusion of
skills versus missions the most notable being Advanced Special Operations Techniques
which are advanced skills that apply to all Special Forces missions and therefore cannot
be a mission in itself
278Major D Jones ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo (5 February 2005) scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
279Major (now Lieutenant Colonel) Mark Grdovic Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
118
Lastly the definition fails to capture the essence or purpose of unconventional
warfare--that it is the support to an insurgency Joint Publication 1-02 defines support to
insurgency as the ldquosupport provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of
a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflictrdquo280 This
definition clearly defines the purpose of unconventional warfare in much the same way
the foreign internal defense definition provides a purpose--to help another country free
and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency The purpose is
important as Hy S Rothstein shows because the lack of purpose may be the entire reason
for the confusion about unconventional warfare
Unfortunately the purpose of unconventional warfare is not so easily defined Certainly it must serve the national interests of the United States However there is no clear task so easily defined as the ldquodestruction of the enemy armyrdquo and no method so easily specified as ldquothe direct application of violent forcerdquo Consequently the basic questions about unconventional war have never been adequately answered281
While Hy Rothstein is correct in that the purpose and task is not defined in the definition
if the definition is taken in the context of the unconventional warfare doctrine then they
are readily apparent the task is to support an insurgency against a hostile regime or
occupier and the purpose is to overthrow the regime or remove the occupier Addressing
the task and purpose as outlined here may clear up the misunderstanding of the definition
280JP 1-02
281Hy S Rothstein Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare (Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006) 21
119
Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare
There are seven phases of US-sponsored insurgency the military definition being
unconventional warfare The seven phases are preparation initial contact infiltration
organization buildup combat employment and demobilization282 There have been
arguments as recently as 2001 by senior Special Forces leaders that the seven-phased
unconventional warfare model is no longer valid However based on the most recent
operations the seven-phased model is extremely accurate in describing the support to the
insurgency although the phases may have been compressed by the same circumstances
that affected Jedburgh operations in France--Special Forces were not infiltrated into the
sector until conventional combat operations were already underway283
Phase I of unconventional warfare ldquopreparationrdquo includes the decision to use
military force against a threatening nation the planning and the preparations for its use
and the psychological preparations of the threatening nationrsquos population the
international community and the American public284 Some confusion exists with respect
to another operational term operational preparation of the environment which is easily
confused with this phase of unconventional warfare Thomas OrsquoConnell DOD Assistant
Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict provides some insight into
what operational preparation of the environment is and is not during an interview with
282Department of the Army Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations (Washington DC Department of the Army April 2003) 1-11 to 1-17
283Kershner 2-2
284FM 3-05201 1-11
120
Linda Robinson ldquoItrsquos becoming familiar with the area in which you might have to
work Itrsquos nonhostile recon Itrsquos not intrusive Others without military background
may view it as saber rattling but itrsquos as far from that as you can getrdquo285 Linda Robinson
continues ldquoIn the 1980rsquos OrsquoConnell said special operations forces spent lots of time
preparing to respond to hijackings kidnappings and takeovers of embassies To do that
they visited embassies and airports and examined possible helicopter landing zones and
assault zonesrdquo286
An example of the residual confusion can be found in an article by Colonel
Walter Herd ldquoIn war fighting if your fighting by with amp [sic] through indigenous forces
or if yoursquore collecting intelligence and conducting operational preparation of the
environment by with and through indigenous forces your conducting unconventional
warfarerdquo287 This confusion is politically sensitive in terms of how another nation may
define unconventional warfare If they define it as support to an insurgency then
obviously just conducting operational preparation of the environment if it is mistaken for
the first phase of unconventional warfare could have grave repercussions much like the
mistaken unconventional warfare mission statement during Operation Enduring Freedom-
Philippines discussed in the previous chapter Thomas OrsquoConnell is correct when he
stipulates that operational preparation of the environment can apply to any special
285Linda Robinson ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet accessed on 12 May 2006
286Ibid
287Colonel Walter Herd ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service (13 June 2005) available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet accessed on 12 May 06
121
operations mission from counterterrorism to counterproliferation With respect to
unconventional warfare it may allow long-term relationships with host nation partners to
develop just like they do during normal foreign internal defense training missions that
may ease the initial contact phase of unconventional warfare if that were ever necessary
An example of this relationship--US Special Forces conducted foreign internal
defense in a country then for some reason the government was overthrown and these
former military personnel that had worked with the Special Forces are now the cadre of
the insurgency In fact due to vast number of coalition operations and combined training
exercises the long-term relationships that are developing throughout the world may
change the nature of the second phase--initial contact Instead of initial contact it may be
reminiscent of the CIA contacting former associates in Afghanistan or in Northern Iraq
about a new endeavor--overthrowing the current regime
Phase II ldquoinitial contactrdquo was originally in the CIA charter288 The purpose of
this phase is to conduct ldquoan accurate assessment of the potential resistance and
[arrange] for the reception and initial assistancerdquo of the US operational elements that will
be infiltrated during the next phase289 This is generally a covert or clandestine activity
normally conducted in one of two ways First of all this initial contact is likely to be the
first time that a representative of the US government contacts or approaches an insurgent
organization that has only recently emerged or has never been contacted by the US
before This could be due to any number of reasons such as political or geographic
isolation The second type of approach the inherently easier of the two is with a
288FM 3-05201 1-12 and Bank 160-2 173
289FM 3-05201 1-14
122
previously contacted group that is now in a position of influence that the US would like
to capitalize on to further US national interests Although in contact with US
representatives prior to this time in Phase II this group is being asked for the first time to
work with the US in an unconventional warfare campaign to overthrow the regime As
explained in the description of Phase I having contacts with numerous groups throughout
the world greatly benefits the US and increased the speed of response in a crisis Also
during this phase if the security environment is high risk for US personnel resistance
personnel could be exfiltrated trained in a third party country and when ready inserted
as the only operational element that will infiltrate in phase III--infiltration--instead of US
operational elements
Phase III ldquoinfiltrationrdquo is the entry of the first DOD operational elements into the
insurgentsrsquo areas and has been the doctrinal hand-off between the other governmental
agencies and Special Forces290 This will be the first significant presence in theater
which may now include forward operational bases or other command control or logistics
nodes supporting the committed operational forces In indirect approaches this may not
be the infiltration of US operational elements but newly trained indigenous operational
assets
Phase IV ldquoorganizationrdquo ensures that the indigenous forces are effectively
organized for the buildup phase Phase V291 This has historically included in-processing
issuing weapons pay oaths to the future government and medical screenings However
290FM 3-05201 1-15 3-1 2 and Banks 172-175 and John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
291FM 3-05201 1-15
123
this process has been much more difficult to accomplish in the compressed timelines and
large numbers of insurgents to in-process during the last two unconventional warfare
efforts The concept is sound and protects US interests by providing a record of what
training was conducted and weapons were issued It also provides a means of providing
the emerging government some records of those with training that could work as militias
or conventional soldiers The end state of this phase is an insurgent force that is organized
by function and mission capable of growth if necessary and with the appropriate
command and control structures in place
Phase V ldquobuild-uprdquo is the growth of the insurgency The operational elements
must balance the assigned mission with security and logistical support capability In
insurgency it is not the size that matters but effects and survivability Therefore the size
of the insurgent force is not based on preconceived end strength but on three aspects
effect that needs to be generated for mission accomplishment the constraints of the
security environment and the logistical constraints292 In a less security-constrained
environment with freedom of movement such as liberated areas or sanctuary areas then
larger forces can be organized and built-up In a constrained security environment for
example urban areas smaller cellular networks are used for security and survivability
The last aspect of build-up is the ability of the area to support an insurgent organization
In rural or agrarian societies that mass produce food then the population will be able to
logistically support a larger insurgent group In a constrained environment such as a city
292Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) 1-4 to 1-5
124
or if the counterinsurgency forces have implemented rationing then the area is going to
be less capable to support a movement larger than a small cell
Phase VI ldquocombat employmentrdquo begins with the offensive air or ground
campaign by conventional forces or if purely an unconventional warfare campaign such
as Afghanistan a Special Forces and indigenous ground campaign293 The insurgents will
conduct operations either until link-up with conventional forces or the defeat of the
government or occupying forces leading to the eventual take over of the country If the
insurgents are unable to gain victory or control of the environment they may be forced
into one of the following options (1) conduct a retreat withdrawal or delaying action to
trade space for time (2) disperse into small cells and hide within the population or
restricted terrain (3) establish a defense in restricted terrain if a larger force to regroup
reorganize and prepare for further offensive operations or (4) withdraw to sanctuary
areas which may be in an adjoining country The worst case would be for the insurgents
to be decisively engaged and destroyed
Phase VII ldquodemobilizationrdquo has historically meant disarming and disbanding the
insurgentsrsquo overt military forces such as guerrillas and returning them to their pre-crisis
place in society However if the experiences since 11 September are an indicator in the
future the majority of insurgent forces will transition to local militias and general-purpose
forces in preparation for establishing a secure environment until national police and
military forces can take over this role entirely At such a time as a nation-wide security
force is employed then the remaining ldquomilitiasrdquo or ldquoirregularsrdquo will be demobilized by
their government Historically US unconventional warfare efforts have ended in three
293FM 3-05201 1-17 3-1
125
ways demobilization termination of support with no demobilization and recently in
Iraq and Afghanistan the insurgent forces have become local militias and in some cases
national forces and are not actually demobilized until well into foreign internal defense
operations Because of these three possible outcomes ldquodemobilizationrdquo may not be the
best description of this phase Even in the unconventional warfare doctrinal manual FM
3-05201 demobilization is said to be a ldquomajor activity of transitionrdquo294 ldquoTransitionrdquo is a
much more accurate term than demobilization
Foreign Internal Defense
Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition
Interestingly the epitome of a clear definition is Foreign Internal Defense JP 1shy
02 defines Foreign Internal Defense as ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of
a government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo295 JP 3-071 Joint
Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes
Foreign Internal Defense into three types of support indirect direct (not involving
combat operations) and combat support296 As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories
represent significantly different levels of US diplomatic and military commitment and
riskrdquo297
294Ibid 4-2 295JP 1-02
296Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
297Ibid I-4 126
There is also some debate if Special Forces conduct foreign internal defense or
instead conduct a lesser operation under foreign internal defense such as
counterinsurgency or training since this is an overarching term for a myriad of
interagency programs that span all the elements of a supporting nationrsquos national
power298 The argument is valid although the clarity of this operation comes from the
part of the definition that states the conditions to be met ldquoto free or protect its society
from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo This portion of the definition is the
driving factor behind efforts of Special Forces The fact that this effort takes an
interagency effort supporting another governmentrsquos internal defense and development
plan provides context to the solution which is important in this day of the military
assuming a heavy burden in Iraq and Afghanistan A similar argument could be made
with respect to counterinsurgency and if the US actually conducts this operation or only
supports another countryrsquos counterinsurgency efforts However if insurgency is an
overarching term for any type of armed resistance aimed at either the overthrow of a
government or the removal of an occupying power then there are instances such as Iraq
where the initial counterinsurgency efforts may be a unilateral US effort or as a coalition
As the new government is established the operational approach begins to shift from
combat support In efforts such as the Philippines the effort is direct support to help the
host nation defeat an internal threat while meeting US national objectives of defeating al
Qarsquoida associated networks
298LTC (retired) Mark Lauber Multiple discussion with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
127
So although debate may exist about the role of Special Forces in foreign internal
defense the definition is clear where the unconventional warfare definition is not in the
condition or end-state of the operation The foreign internal defense doctrine also
provides the three levels of support which further clarifies the types of support provided
These two elements may be the solution for clarifying the unconventional warfare
definition
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Although it is easy to understand that unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are different and likely opposite in their end states considering the historical
background presented in the last chapter it is difficult to tie this directly to why words
matter Some may say that as long as the Special Forces operators understands what they
are supposed to be doing on the ground at the tactical level everything else will fall in
place However this argument is much more fundamental than it would seem Regardless
of the similarities in tactics techniques and procedures at the tactical level it is the end
state that matters most Iraq provides a good example of this concept Abu Musab
Zarqawi beheaded prisoners while videotaping the brutal execution and received
relatively minor international reaction Compare this to the global reaction and
international outcry when the US soldiers humiliated the prisoners at Abu Ghriab prison
Although the actions of the US soldiers were extremely unprofessional and an
embarrassment to the US the prisoners did not die horrendous deaths The beheading de-
legitimized the US and Iraqi efforts because it added to the sense of insecurity and
violence and appealed to younger members of the Muslim society that were prone to
128
jihadi-propaganda At the same time the acts of the US soldiers de-legitimized the US
and Iraqi efforts by completely countering the US information operationrsquos efforts to
portray the US as a liberator The US wanted to show how the US was freeing the Iraqis
from the oppression of Saddam yet the Iraqi citizens were being mistreated by their so-
called liberators Had the soldiers understood the concept of legitimacy and that every
one of their actions either helped or hurt the US and the fledgling Iraqi governmentrsquos
legitimacy and with it the chances of success they may not have made these mistakes
The same can be said of US militaryrsquos preference for kinetic effects versus
nonkinetics in counterinsurgency Had the US military understood from the beginning of
the postconflict phase that legitimacy was the most important commodity for US efforts
then ldquocordon and searchrdquo would have been replaced with the ldquocordon and knockrdquo early in
the conflict Instead this concept took nearly two years to be implemented across Iraq
While these are not specifically Special Forces examples they are used here since the
background knowledge is more widely known
Logical Lines of Operations
One method for clarifying the relationship between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense is a logical lines of operation comparison Logical lines of
operations are defined by Dr Jack D Kem as ldquoa cognitive operational framework
planning construct used to define the concept of multiple and often disparate actions
arranged in a framework unified by purpose All logical lines of operation should lead
129
to the [Center of Gravity or COG]rdquo299 In the following examples the short title for the
logical line of operation is labeled and the operational objectives the conditions decisive
points or effects that must be met along that line are defined by boxed number at the
bottom of the chart The corresponding numbered boxes are then placed on the lines of
operations which they support As Dr Kem explains ldquo[operational] objectives in a logical
line of operation depict causal relationships that are both linear and nonlinear
Operational objectives are depicted along a logical line of operation the same operational
objectives may be depicted along more than one logical line of operationrdquo300
While both of the lines of operation charts provide large number of operational
objectives boxes or circles and their corresponding numbers it should be noted that the
actual objectives chosen will depend on the operational considerations--environment
signature relationship and approach In fact some of the objectives could become lines
of operations of their own especially as these lines of operations are translated into
mission orders for subordinate units It should also be noted that the following lines of
operations are for the most part military lines of operations and support or are supported
by the interagency and the conventional military lines of operations across the elements
of national power--diplomatic informational military and economic--when appropriate
Finally because information operations are so important to this type of warfare they are
integral to every objective and therefore there is not an additional information operation
line of operation
299Dr Jack D Kem Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade (Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd) 34-35
300Ibid
130
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 2 provides an example of the logical lines of operation for unconventional
warfare The diagram captures all of the operational considerations-environment
signature relationship and approach and the logical lines of operation The operational
considerations have a significant effect on how the operational objectives are reached
For example one operational objective might be to organize an indigenous resistance
How this is done depends on the environment and the constraints of the operational
signature So in a covert operation conducted in a hostile environment a direct or combat
approach may be used However under the same considerations but in a denied area
where US personnel cannot penetrate the security environment indigenous personnel
may have to be trained in an adjacent country and then reinserted into the operational
area
131
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines
The logical lines shown in figure 2 are examples of the types of Special Forces
specific logical lines of operation along upon which they would apply their
unconventional warfare advising training and equipping capabilities and skills In this
example the logical lines of operation and the longer descriptions are
132
1 Gain Popular Support US advisors ensure that all operations take into
consideration the population Operations are also conducted to show the ineptitude of the
government and its failings to protect the population and its basic needs which would
include attacks on governmental infrastructure
2 Gain International Support Actions must also take into consideration the
international community One of the key elements of this effort is the insurgentrsquos ability
to adhere to the laws of land warfare in order to gain belligerent status throughout the
conflict Other factors include highlighting the governments or occupiers excessive use of
force or human rights violations
3 Develop Insurgent Infrastructure Organize and employ operational
intelligence logistics and political infrastructure infiltrate government agencies develop
capabilities tied to the desired effect provide lethal and nonlethal support
4 Defeat Government forces (or the occupying forces) This is done either
physically or psychologically by attacking the security forces center of gravity and
critical vulnerabilities and capabilities while protecting the insurgent force and US effort
support Coalition land forces during invasion if conducting shaping operations
5 Prepared for Postconflict The insurgents with the help of the US begin to
develop the long-range plans on preparing the environment for the postconflict phases by
establishing underground or shadow governments from the local to national level
identifying the personnel that will take over the key government positions at the
transition secure or protect key infrastructure and psychologically prepare the
population for the transition
133
6 Shape for the Combined Forces Land Component Commander When
unconventional warfare is a shaping operation for a larger conventional decisive
operations then the insurgents set the conditions such as forcing the continued
commitment of forces to rear area security providing intelligence and guides
establishing downed aircrew networks and seizing or securing limited objectives
In this case the center of gravity is the population The unconventional warfare
end state would be the de-legitimized hostile government or an occupying power
overthrown and conditions set for the establishment and protection of a new government
Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis provide a good
example of the logical lines of operation in foreign internal defense information
operations security operations development of security forces reestablishing essential
service developing government infrastructure and promoting economic growth301 All of
the logical lines of operation are aimed at the center of gravity--the people Like the
insurgents the government must gain and maintain its legitimacy from the people The
foreign internal defense end state is a ldquosecure and stable environment maintained by
indigenous forces under the direction of a legitimate national government that is
freely elected and accepts economic pluralismrdquo302
301Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
302Ibid
134
Figure 3 provides another example of possible logical lines of operations again
related to Special Forces foreign internal defense capabilities They are
1 Security Operations The first priority for any government facing an insurgency
is to establish a secure environment through population control measure offensive
operations such as search and attack cordon and search or cordon and knock to deny the
insurgentsrsquo access to the population and freedom of movement
2 Gain Popular Support Gaining and maintaining the support of the population is
the overall goal and path to victory since the population is the center of gravity therefore
it is imperative for long-term success that the population views the government as
legitimate It is equally important for the US effort to be viewed as legitimate versus
being viewed as an occupier or supporting a puppet government
3 Gain International Support It is also important for the governmentrsquos internal
defense efforts to be legitimized accepted and supported by the international community
To be successful most governments will rely on the international community to provide
economic aid or relief of debt and moral support
4 Defeat Insurgents If done correctly the first three lines should de-legitimize
the insurgents and lead to their lasting defeat This line will attack the hard-core
insurgents Some may succumb to offers of amnesty but most will need to be killed or
captured through offensive operations
5 Develop Host Nation Internal Security Internal security forces such as local
and national police forces key facility protection corps diplomat security personnel
coast guard criminal investigation paramilitary forces for counterinsurgency local and
national level special weapons and tactics capabilities will be necessary to defeat the
135
internal threat as a law enforcement matter The coalition forces will provide security for
the entire country Then as the internal security forces are trained the coalition will
transition to only protecting the nation from external threats until such a time as the
actual national military force is trained equipped and can conduct unilateral operations
As in the unconventional warfare model the population is once again the center
of gravity The end state is a legitimate government that the population trusts and is able
to detect and defeat internal and external threats
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation
136
Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 4 now builds on the previous two sections and shows the significance of
the differences between these two operations In the figure the center of gravity is
depicted by the box The sphere floats in this box and its legitimacy is affected by the
success or failures of US support Although both unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are depicted simultaneously only one operation would be conducted at
anyone time against a government Beginning with the unconventional warfare effort on
the left the logical lines of operations affect the legitimacy of the government In a
perfect situation the government is unable to counter this threat and the government loses
legitimacy and ultimately fails leading to the insurgent victory which takes place when
the ldquosphererdquo is dislodged to the right This success can be further enhanced if
conventional forces are added to the equation which in theory will cause a much faster
defeat of the enemy government
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model
137
If on the other hand this is a foreign internal defense mission the US efforts
along the logical lines of operation are aimed at supporting the government and
attempting to defeat or dislocate the insurgency If operations progress well along the
logical lines of operation then the population begins to favor the government pushing
the sphere to the left If done correctly the sphere will continue to move left as the
military in concert with a responsive government provides a secure environment and
will ultimately lead to the separation of the insurgents from the populations Success for
this foreign internal defense is a strong legitimate government capable of identifying and
defeating subversion lawlessness and insurgency on their own
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
There is no discussion in doctrine of a transition between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense In fact the idea that unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are related has never really been articulated In a major operation or
campaign involving conflict and postconflict environments there is an identifiable
transition period between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The
transition between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense happens at the
point when US or Coalition forces have removed the regime and have become the
occupying power or have installed an indigenous governing body even if only for the
interim
US forces had a difficult time identifying that the insurgency was growing
Special Forces understood that something was happening but didnrsquot understand clearly
138
that what was taking place was a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense in both Iraq and Afghanistan Even if they may have suspected that the
transition was taking place finding and neutralizing the top fifty-five of the former
regime in Iraq and senior al Qarsquoida and Taliban leadership in Afghanistan became
priority one This was likely due to the fact that the goal was regime removal but the
order to kill or capture the top fifty-five led to the over-focus on this task by Special
Forces and the other special operations forces
In Iraq more so than Afghanistan the insurgents spent the first two months
establishing their underground or clandestine command control intelligence and lines of
communication networks Once their networks were established and secure then they
began to increase their capability to prosecute terrorism guerrilla warfare and in some
place like Fallujah and An Anbar province a low-level form of mobile warfare having
been able to organize and employ large forces capable of holding terrain for short periods
of time In Afghanistan due to a much smaller population of pro-Taliban and al Qarsquoida
fighters and less urbanized terrain the insurgency has grown much more slowly over the
last five years and will continue to grow at a slower rate By the time that Special Forces
and the conventional military identified a transition to foreign internal defense the
insurgency had already escalated well into the guerrilla warfare stage Had this transition
been identified earlier counterinsurgency operations could have been conducted to
disrupt the insurgentsrsquo clandestine networks before they could be established and the
insurgents could gain the initiative
139
The unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense transition point can be
modeled using ldquothe Staterdquo versus ldquothe Counter-Staterdquo relationship303 The State is the
enemy government or an occupying power The Counter-State would be the insurgent
elements assisted by or in conjunction with US forces The goal is to either remain or
become the State For example the US and its coalition partners including the supported
insurgents are the Counter-State and use military force to overthrow the regime or the
State
The transition point is the point at which the Counter-State successfully defeats
the regime and becomes ldquothe new Staterdquo An important revelation for the new State
happens at the transition point The new State must immediately switch its mindset and
tactics to protect itself in order to now remain the State The transition from the Counter-
State to the State corresponds to the transition between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense as well as the transition between conflict and postconflict
So what happens to ldquothe old Staterdquo At the time the old State becomes the
Counter-State it has two options accept defeat or not If it chooses defeat then the
postconflict nation building will occur more rapidly and with less violence than has been
encountered in Iraq as in the case of Germany and Japan after they were occupied by the
Allies in World War II If the Counter-state does not accept defeat then it begins using
303The State versus Counter-State theory was originally based on a presentation on the relationship between the counterinsurgent and the insurgent by Dr Gordon McCormick US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division presented at the Unconventional Warfare Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC for further discussion of Dr McCormickrsquos ldquoDiamond modelrdquo see Lieutenant Colonel (P) Eric P Wendtrsquos article ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
140
tactics appropriate to its capabilities either political or military or a combination to
regain its State status William Flavin explains these options in his article on conflict
termination ldquoWhen the friendly forces can freely impose their will on the adversary the
opponent may have to accept defeat terminate active hostilities or revert to other types
of conflict such as geopolitical actions or guerrilla warfarerdquo304 The former regime
elements in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are examples of new Counter-States that
have not accepted defeat
The confusion between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
comes much like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan when the US and the Coalition became
the State prior to the end of major combat operations Flavin explains that the transition
point or what he calls conflict termination is ldquothe formal end of fighting not the end of
conflictrdquo305 In Iraq after the regime was defeated combat operations were still ongoing
but inadequate steps were taken to ensure that the US and coalition protected the interim
government and themselves as the State
The fact that Special Forces never positively identified this transition and
continued to conduct what they thought was unconventional warfare versus attempting to
disrupt the budding insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan is important This failure to
identify the shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense had a
detrimental effect on US stabilization operations First the unconventional warfare
mindset focused Special Forcesrsquo continued efforts on hunting former regime elements or
304William Flavin ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet accessed on 24 August 2004
305Ibid
141
on other activities that were tangential or irrelevant to securing the State The mindset
was that the mission was not over until all of the key members of the former regime were
killed or captured In Iraq this focus was provided by the ldquo55-most wantedrdquo deck of
cards In Afghanistan the hunt for Usama bin Laden and his associates continued
unabated with all efforts focused on him
In both cases Special Forces efforts were focused on single individuals with little
regard for other more crucial missions aimed at securing the environment and the State
This allowed the insurgents and the foreign fighters to establish underground elements-shy
command intelligence operational and support networks The establishment of
underground organizations allowed the insurgency to transition from a latent or incipient
phase to the guerrilla warfare phase
The Transition Curve Model
One of the key observations of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is that at
some point in both conflicts the operations shifted from conflict to postconflict and for
Special Forces particularly from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense The
question that arises is where did this ldquoshiftrdquo or ldquotransitionrdquo take place with relation to
time space or effort As shown in figure 5 graphing these operations with respect to
time and overall US effort including unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
operations a pattern emerges that models what would be the ldquobest caserdquo scenario--a nice
clean bell curve that goes from minimal US effort and Special Forces presence in the
peacetime engagement phases and begins to rise as the decision is made to use military
force to overthrow or defeat another government At the decisive point the conflict phase
has been successful and the enemy government is defeated which signifies the shift from 142
conflict to postconflict This model provides a framework for mapping progress and for
planning campaigns
The Transition Curve (see figure 5) was originally developed to model Special
Forcesrsquo participation in full spectrum operations focused first on the seven phases of US-
sponsored unconventional warfare second on the identification of the conflict
termination point which marks the transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense and finally to model a nine-phased foreign internal defense operation
and the eventual return to peacetime engagement306 The graph was developed to correct
the doctrinal misunderstanding surrounding the Special Forces missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan307 The transition point draws a distinct line between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense to reduce confusion
306The nine-phased foreign internal defense model was developed by the author based on his experience in Kosovo to capture the salient steps that must take place to return to prewar levels and peacetime engagement For this study they will only be referred in general terms
307The author developed the graph as an instructor at the Special Forces Detachment Officer Qualification course in September of 2003
143
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model
144
The unconventional warfare phases are the same as discussed above although
ldquotransitionrdquo has been substituted for demobilization For this study a non-doctrinalshy
phased foreign internal defense model was developed and used to allow the phases to be
mapped on the transition curve The nine phases used here start at the transition point
(signifying the establishment of an interim government or occupation decree) phase I-
gain control phase II-secure the environment phase III-humanitarian response phase
IV-training and employment phase V-reconstruction phase VI-sovereignty phase VII-
revitalization phase VIII-neutralization and phase IX-normalization308
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq
Now that the phases have been described the transition curve will be used to model
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq The Afghanistan model (see figure 6) only shows the
initial year to keep the focus on the transition phase and not what is happening today
Afghanistan is unusual since it began with such a small decisive force initially there
were only three Special Forces operational detachments-Alphas later building up to a
total of seventeen by December of 2001 with very few conventional forces engaged until
the transition point and the establishment of the interim government At the transition
point in mid-December 2001 larger US and coalition force build-up took place
However the only areas that were secure were the major cities Everywhere else was
called the ldquowild wild Westrdquo309 The continued lack of security had made it difficult for
any reconstruction effort outside the major cities forcing some nongovernmental
308The nine phases were developed from the authorrsquos combined experiences in Kosovo and Northern Iraq
309Captain T interview
145
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)
146
organizations to withdraw US military civil affairs teams and the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams have become more active in an effort to pacify many of the
unsecured areas310
The level of insecurity has been steadily increasing over time This security
problem can also be tied to the efforts of US military In most cases Special Forces have
not changed their mission since the war began to stay on the offensive against remnants
of the Taliban and Al Qarsquoida Special Forces at this point should simply focus on
establishing a secure environment by taking an active role in training indigenous police
and military forces and acting as advisors to these units as they deploy in the outlying
areas This in turn will make the population feel more comfortable about providing
human intelligence which can then be acted on to neutralize the insurgent remnants
For Iraq (see figure 7) it is obvious that the country is not secure and is potentially getting
less secure as the insurgents continue to disrupt the stability and reconstruction efforts
This difficulty began with the uncontrolled looting at first and now the US is playing
catch-up to the insurgents It was not until the insurgency had become organized that the
coalition began trying to disrupt it instead of disrupting it before it ever had a chance to
get started
The other interesting aspect of this graph is with respect to force numbers
Immediately after the conflict it may have taken 130000 coalition troops to secure the
most difficult areas in and around the ldquoSunni Trianglerdquo However over the first several
months the insurgency began to grow in strength at the same time the conventional army
310Dobbins 140-141
147
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom)
148
was forced to take on multiple roles such as training and advising economic
reconstruction and local governance All of these secondary tasks meant that there were
few forces to establish security Add to this the collapse of the Iraqi police and the
disbandment of the Iraqi Army as well as the US attrition based counterinsurgency
efforts the insurgency grew exponentially during the first two years Now with current
coalition and Iraqi troop levels the security situation is still unfavorable yet there are
nearly twice as many troops with a total of 211700 Iraqi security forces trained and
equipped311 The graph also shows that the US conventional forces have to make up the
differences between the current indigenous force levels and what they need to be Until
this line grows to meet the US Force levels then the US will have to continue to commit
large numbers of ground troops
Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model
One question that arises from this analysis of the phases of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense is how do these phases and the transition point
correlate to the new joint operational phasing Figure 8 provided a visual example of the
joint phases and the corresponding phases of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
It is apparent upon further analysis that how these phases match up to the joint
phasing diagram depends if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or
the supporting effort It should also be noted that operational preparation of the
311Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report (Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005) slide 8
149
environment happens prior to the operational plan being approved by the President In
this sense operational preparation of the environment ends with the approval of the
operational plan and the first phase of unconventional warfare begins Once again this
highlights that operational preparation of the environment is a different mission set from
unconventional warfare and is applicable to any mission
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed
Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Note Numbering is authorrsquos
150
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense have a permanent place in
the future range of military operations doctrine The 2006 US Special Operations
Command posture statement highlights this fact stating ldquo[Special operations forcesrsquo] key
role in the long-term fight will be conducting [unconventional warfare] and [foreign
internal defense] to build foreign capabilities that deny terrorist organizations the ability
to sustain their effortsrdquo312 However in the same posture statement they define
unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo313 What are not clear are the differences in indigenous forces and
host nation forces nor does this definition of unconventional warfare provide the purpose
of working with by and through The idea that unconventional warfare is working by
with and through other forces indigenous or surrogates is not a new concept or point of
confusion found only in the US Special Operations Command posture statement The
Special Forces definition of unconventional warfare found in FM 3-0520 is the same as
defined in JP 1-02 except that through with and by are added ldquo[Unconventional
Warfare] is a broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations predominantly
conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo314
312United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 6 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
313Ibid
314FM 3-0520 2-1
151
One of the difficulties applying unconventional warfare as an overarching term to
the war on terror is the context of the doctrine which shows that unconventional warfare
is used to support armed indigenous forces aimed at overthrowing the government of a
nation-state and therefore does not apply against the than it cannot be used against a non-
state actor Other than Afghanistan al Qarsquoida has not yet successfully occupied any other
foreign nations Operations using indigenous or surrogate forces that are not aimed at the
overthrow of a government would more precisely be called foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism or counter-proliferation All of
these operations can doctrinally be conducted with surrogate forces but are not
unconventional warfare
This subtlety is another important aspect of why words matter An example of this
is the CIArsquos training of an Afghan unit to capture Usama bin Laden in 1998--a classic
example of counterterrorism not unconventional warfare as some would stipulate315
Another example of this concept comes from World War II when Aaron Bank was given
a mission to ldquoraise a company strength unit of German defectors military and civilian
conduct subversion sabotage and guerrilla actions and above all capture high-ranking
Nazisrdquo in what was believed to be their last holdout areas in the Austrian Alps316 Merely
by the subversion sabotage and guerrilla warfare aspects of this mission it would seem
to be a form of unconventional warfare however due to the short duration and limited
315ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo CBS News (15 September 2004) available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet accessed on 24 April 2006
316Bank 72-74
152
objectives of the mission of harassment versus overthrow it better qualifies it as a direct
action mission
In determining the future usefulness of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense three threat models have to be addressed those within the borders of a
state those that transnational or non-state actors and those in the amorphous
ldquoungoverned spaces or failed nations
In the first case threats within the border of a nation unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense will always have important roles The possible nation state
threats are hostile nations (Iraq) rogue nations (North Korea) states that sponsor
terrorism and insurgency (Iran and Syria) and states that are seized or controlled by al
Qarsquoida most likely within the caliphate boundary are exactly what unconventional
warfare was developed for--to overthrow regimes by supporting insurgency
As the previous example and the historical analysis demonstrate the future
foreign internal defense possibilities and applications are endless As has been witnessed
foreign internal defense can be used across the spectrum of conflict--from peacetime to
high-intensity postconflict environments--where a government friendly or passive to the
US needs help to effectively combat growing or potential insurgency subversion or
lawlessness Thus foreign internal defense is likely to be the primary mission due to the
number of friendly countries that face insurgency while unconventional warfare will be
reserved for the cases where there is a hostile rogue failed or terrorist-sponsoring
country
The second case is against non-state actors or transnational threats that threaten
regions or seek to upset the global balance and are not bound by borders The problem
153
with applying unconventional warfare against a non-state actor that is not in control of a
nation is that unconventional warfare was designed for use against a hostile government
or occupying power within a state Al Qarsquoida is neither a state nor an occupier as of yet
although the Taliban-led and al Qarsquoida supported Afghanistan could be the closest model
Al Qarsquoida and its associated movements are better classified as a global insurgency All
three of these elements eliminate unconventional warfare as the correct overall operation
term to be used to counter al Qarsquoida or other non-state actors The ldquoglobalrdquo aspect of this
insurgency also does not support the use of foreign internal defense as an overarching
term either since the problem is bigger than a single nation yet it is related to the defense
of the current global systems or global status quo In these cases there will be some
countries that are threatened by insurgencies supported by non-state actors such as the
insurgencies in Iraq and the Philippines in which case foreign internal defense will the
operation that has to be conducted to defeat these elements In the case of a hostile
regime that either supports a non-state actor is a puppet of the non-state actor or in fact
has been taken over by the non-state actor than unconventional warfare will be used to
overthrow these unfriendly regimes
The final threat model is that of the failed nation or ungoverned spaces Failed
states are best described as states that have no or minimally functioning governments
The Taliban run Afghanistan without its al Qarsquoida influences provides a good example
of a failed nation Even in failed states a State and a Counter-State can be identified In
the case of a hostile State unconventional warfare could be used by supporting the
Counter-State The Taliban State and the Northern Alliance Counter-State in Afghanistan
prior to 11 September may provide a good example of this relationship In the case of a
154
failed nation but with a friendly State foreign internal defense could be conducted to
strengthen the legitimacy and capability of the friendly State in hopes of developing a
functioning government
These failed states and the above premises on the State and Counter-State could
also easily be described as ungoverned spaces as well but in the context of this analysis
ungoverned spaces are areas where there is no effective government control even though
these areas are within the borders of a sovereign nation This area may also extend across
the border into neighboring countries as well such as the tri-border region in South
American where Brazil Paraguay and Argentina intersect and there is no effective
government control which enables criminal activity to thrive In these cases the solution
is to conduct foreign internal defense to help the government regain control of the
ungoverned spaces as the US tried during the White Star program in eastern Laos during
the Vietnam War Another solution when there is no viable government to support in
these efforts is to use a United Nations sanctioned operation or another international
coalition effort such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to move in and provide
security and build a government The US could do this unilaterally but based on the
current operations and domestic support it is unlikely that the US commit to such a
mission This mission would be the far end of the foreign internal defense scale and
would resemble the US efforts in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and no effective
government system operating
The discussion on Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense roles in the future is further complicated by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense
Review which uses the undefined term ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo to
155
describe the campaign against al Qarsquoida and its associated movements Global
unconventional warfare defined within the complete doctrinal context of unconventional
warfare means ldquosupport to global insurgencyrdquo Certainly this was not the intention of
calling it unconventional warfare but it does bring up a larger debate about the missions
that Special Forces will be conducting One problem is the misunderstanding of the
definition and doctrine of unconventional warfare and the other problem is that there is a
sense that anything that is not conventional must be unconventional with little thought
going into the meaning of the words Although well-intentioned at some point the use of
this terminology will likely have some semblance to the failed attempts in the summer of
2005 to change the global war on terror to global struggle against violent extremism or
war on extremism because the global war on terror did not correctly describe the war In
the same way ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo has some political baggage based on the
missing doctrinal context of unconventional warfare definition
This leads to the final question ldquowhat is the role of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense in the context of the Global War on Terrorrdquo Regardless of how
ldquotransnationalrdquo these movements are the sovereignty of the nation-states is still going to
constrain US and coalition operations Because of this there are really three situations
that unconventional warfare will be used for
1 Operations against Rogue Hostile Regimes or State Sponsors of Terrorism--a
proven operational concept having been used successfully twice since 11 September in
Afghanistan and Iraq These operations will either be the decisive or shaping operation
depending on the political sensitivity of the target country
156
2 Operations against what will be referred to in this study as al Qarsquoida states (AQ
States) in which al Qarsquoida is able to overthrow one or more of the regimes within the
boundary of the 7th century caliphate Unconventional warfare would be used to
overthrow these regimes
3 Operations in failed states when there is no effective government but an
element within the population such as a tribe or ethnic group is the State for all intents
and purposes In this case unconventional warfare will be used to overthrow this State
In each one of these cases as soon as the unconventional warfare or conventional
operations have been successful then they will shift to foreign internal defense in the
same way Afghanistan and Iraq transitioned to foreign internal defense Therefore
regardless of the operation the end state will likely include foreign internal defense
conducted once a friendly government is established
For this very reason foreign internal defense will continue to play a significant
role in US engagement strategies In a flashback to the past foreign internal defense will
be conducted for three reasons as well
1 Primarily to protect friendly states threatened by insurgency especially al
Qarsquoida sponsored insurgency such as the Sunni insurgency in Iraq supported by al
Qarsquoida affiliated Abu Musab Zarqawi or state-sponsored insurgency such as the Shirsquoa
insurgency supported by Iran
2 Foreign internal defense during peacetime engagement under the Theater
Security Cooperation Plan or during postconflict mission after the transition from
unconventional warfare and or conventional operations
157
3 To gain control of ungoverned spaces by supporting a weak government or
some portion of the population that is in these areas and will support US and coalition
efforts such as the Hmong tribesmen in Laos to regain control of these areas In extreme
cases international intervention could be used such as United Nations or other
internationally recognized coalitions or alliances to gain control establish a secure
environment and establish a government able to gain and maintain control
Therefore unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense will be the
primary missions of Special Forces in the future Figure 9 provides the actual framework
for Special Forces role within the Global War on Terror The figure shows clearly the
types of operations that will be conducted depending on the situation Analysis of the US
Special Operations Command threat model and the types of operations required for each
threats pictured in figure 10 also supports the above conclusions
Finally figure 9 also shows the relationship between operational preparation of
the environment and other missions Operational preparation of the environment is not
unconventional warfare but applies to every Special Forces missions Figure 9 shows
operational preparation of the environment as the precursor to different types of
operations Because this mission has its own tasks associated with it this may be the
operation that emerges as a new operational concept Another concept shown on the map
is counterinfrastructure instead of counterterrorism to signify that this mission can be
carried out against a regimersquos infrastructure or the infrastructure of an insurgent group
This would also be a more proactive mission versus the current counterterrorism
operations and could easily use ldquosurrogatesrdquo or indigenous forces to conduct these
operations yet would not be unconventional warfare
158
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort
159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model Source United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 4 available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedu les3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006 Note Missions and arrows were added by the author and are not found in any US Special Operations Command publication
Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency
For those that argue that unconventional warfare can be used to defea t an
insurgency David Galula provides some interesting insights First he explains wh y
insurgent warfare does not work for the counterinsurgent
Insurgency warfare is specifically designed to allow the camp afflicted with congenital weakness to acquire strength progressively while fighting The counterinsurgent is endowed with congenital strength for him to adopt the insurgentrsquos warfare would be the same as for a giant to try to fit into dwarfrsquos clothing317
317David Galula Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice (St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005) 73
160
David Galula also explains that if the counterinsurgent could operate as a guerrilla he
would have to have the support of the population which in turn means that the actual
insurgents do not have the support Therefore if the insurgent did not have the support of
the populous in the first place then there would be no need for the counterinsurgent to
operate in these areas However he does not discount the use of commando-style
operations in limited forms As he notes ldquoThey cannot however represent the main form
of the counterinsurgentrsquos warfarerdquo318
Another applicable comment from David Galula has to do with the possibility for
the counterinsurgent ldquoto organize a clandestine force able to defeat the insurgent on his
own termsrdquo the essence of the Global Unconventional Warfare concept As David Galula
explains
Clandestinity [sic] seems to be another of those obligations-turned-into-assets of the insurgent How could the counterinsurgent whose strength derives precisely from his open physical assets build up a clandestine force except as minor and secondary adjunct Furthermore room for clandestine organizations is very limited in revolutionary war Experience shows that no rival--not to speak of hostile--clandestine movements can coexist for long319
Summary
This chapter answered the secondary questions showing that unconventional
warfare is the support to insurgency while foreign internal defense is the support given to
a government to help that government defeat subversion lawlessness and insurgency
The description and subsequent models of the transition from unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense help to clarify the relationship between these two operations The
318Ibid
319Ibid
161
final question on the role of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
respect to non-state actor determined that they are applicable as individual operations
depending on the enemy threat in each country but that global unconventional warfare is
a misnomer This chapter sets the stage to answer the primary question in chapter 5
162
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This study set out to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as currently defined are still applicable to contemporary and future Special
Forces operations Without a doubt the most confusing aspect of this fifty-year old
debate is the definition of unconventional warfare
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion320
Although some would argue that the broad statement provides leeway in its
application what has actually happened is that in providing leeway Special Forces have
historically misunderstood the most basic element of the definition--support to
insurgency Much of the blame for this confusion is evident in the historical analysis
presented in chapter 3--Special Forces leaders were trying to provide a niche mission that
would assure Special Forcesrsquo relevance throughout the turbulent periods after Vietnam
and with the end of the Cold War
However the attempts to make unconventional warfare an overarching term and
the birth of the idea that unconventional warfare is any operation conducted by with and
through an indigenous force has had a grave impact on the forcesrsquo understanding of
unconventional warfare With the rise of the non-state actor there is new emphasis to
320JP 1-02
163
adapt unconventional warfare to this new threat regardless if it is the correct mission or
not The bottom line with respect to the current definition of unconventional warfare is
that taken in the context of unconventional warfare history and current doctrine it is
applicable to todayrsquos contemporary environment as evidenced by operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq but by itself could be and is inadvertently applied to missions it
was never intended As the analysis shows in chapter 4 unconventional warfare has a
significant place in future Special Forcesrsquo operations when regime removal is necessary
as in the cases of rogue or hostile regimes (Saddam Husseinrsquos regime) regimes that
support terrorist or global insurgent organization (Taliban) and finally if al Qarsquoida
successfully seizes power in a country within the caliphate In each of these cases
unconventional warfare will be a weapon of choice as either the decisive operation or as a
shaping operation for other elements of national power
As for foreign internal defense the definition is clear and based on the analysis of
the history of foreign internal defense it will without a doubt continue to be applicable
to future Special Forcesrsquo operations This is especially true in operations to overthrow
regimes through conventional operations and or unconventional warfare operations
which will rollover to foreign internal defense The clarity of the definition leaves little
room for misunderstanding ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a
government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo321 The foreign internal
defense definition provides one significant aspect that the unconventional warfare
definition does not--it provides the conditions that are to be met by the operations ldquoto free
321Ibid
164
and protect a society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo which leaves little
doubt of the purpose of these operations from peacetime engagement to high-intensity
and high-threat environments like Vietnam and Iraq The foreign internal defense
doctrine defines three types of support--indirect direct and combat--which provides
further clarity In todayrsquos environment and the future the key to success against the
global insurgency will be through foreign internal defense to enable US partner nations to
do exactly what the definition says protect themselves from ldquosubversion lawlessness and
insurgencyrdquo all three ingredients necessary to deny al Qarsquoida and its associated
movement sanctuary support freedom of movement and access to weapons of mass
destruction
Special Forces is the only branch specifically trained and ready to conduct these
operations Although the conventional military is doing its best to develop military
training teams they will never have the training experience and cultural awareness in
these types of operations that Special Forces bring to the table Special Forces is standing
in the door of a new paradigm shift The branch will either stay its current course
continually looking for relevancy or it can seize the opportunity and take its place as a
decisive or shaping force able to conduct unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as a key economy of force component of the Joint Forces range of military
operations
Recommendations
First unconventional warfare should be defined as operations by a state or non-
state actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or an
165
occupying power in another country322 In this definition insurgency would an inclusive
term for resistance or partisan operations as well Like foreign internal defense there
would be three types of support or operational approach indirect direct and combat the
application of which would depend on the political and security environments323 This
would make the definition of unconventional warfare as clear as the current definition of
foreign internal defense and would finally end the confusion by providing a purpose
Also like the foreign internal defense definition the new unconventional warfare
definition would be universal In other words external support could be provided by Iran
Syria China Cuba North Korea and even Al Qarsquoida
With regards to the three types of support or operational approach as used
throughout this study each would be used depending on the environment whether hostile
or denied Indirect support would be used when the environment is denied The indirect
approach would focus on the insurgencyrsquos self-sufficiency by indirectly providing lethal
and nonlethal aid money and training through a third party or in the case of training in
a third party country or in the US as was done with the Tibetans Direct support would
include all aspects of support but would put Special Forces in sanctuary or liberated
areas within the vicinity of the conflict but not in direct contact with the hostile
governmentrsquos forces as was the case with the Contras However during this type of
322Jones Although part of the recommended definition in the above mentioned article upon further research the author has dropped ldquoconstitutedrdquo from the definition since there are fewer ldquoconstitutedrdquo or even governments as historically defined in the likely hotspots of today Instead more and more governments are like the Taliban--not a government in the true sense of the word but strong enough to seize and maintain power as the ldquostaterdquo versus some minority or weaker element the ldquocounter-staterdquo such as the Northern Alliance
323Grdovic
166
support there could be risk to Special Forces personnel if the hostile government
launched punitive strikes or raids into these areas to disrupt or destroy the insurgents
Finally if the operational approach is combat support than Special Forces would conduct
all of the supporting tasks mentioned above and would participate in combat operations
as advisors to the insurgency and coordinate other US assets such as close air support
Second the post-11 September unconventional warfare operations also validated
the seven-phase concept of US sponsored insurgency However the final phase
demobilization would be better served if called transition Thus Special Forces would
begin to shape the postconflict environment as combat operations ended to ensure success
in the stability phase by identifying potential threats providing security and transitioning
the insurgents into local militia units that would disrupt any attempts by former regime
elements to establish an insurgent infrastructure The unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense transition point should also be captured within unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine
Third ensure a broader understanding of unconventional warfare throughout the
military and interagency by describing unconventional warfare in detail in core joint and
service doctrinal manuals Currently for example unconventional warfare is not
mentioned in the 3-0 family of capstone Joint publications or the Armyrsquos field manual on
operational doctrine Instead support to insurgency with no reference to unconventional
warfare is described in single paragraph under stability operations The success of
unconventional warfare in Afghanistan demonstrated that SOF can perform economy of
force operations by supporting insurgencies the Northern Alliance in this case and that
these combined forces can conduct decisive offensive operations SOFrsquos unconventional
167
warfare efforts in Northern Iraq advising the Kurds also validated the concept of using
insurgents to conduct shaping operations in support of conventional forces
Fourth the Global Unconventional Warfare campaign needs to be dropped in
favor of a better term that captures the counterinsurgency nature of this war possibly
global counterinsurgency counter global insurgency global internal defense or global
counter irregular warfare To do this the problem global insurgency must first be
defined A recommended definition is operations by one or more networked non-state
entities with the goal of overthrowing or dramatically changing the global status quo or
disrupting globalization The possible definition for the counter to this would be similar
to the foreign internal defense definition but on a grand-strategy scale
A broad range of direct and indirect interagency coalition special operations and conventional military efforts to defeat global insurgency subversion and lawlessness by denying sanctuary freedom of movement external support mechanisms mass popular support access to weapons of mass destruction psychological and propaganda effects operational intelligence and armed offensive capabilities
Under this definition a single overarching term may not be needed but it would be the
combined ldquoeffectsrdquo of operations across the globe For Special Forces this would include
unconventional warfare foreign internal defense operational preparation of the
battlefield direct action counterterrorism counterproliferation special reconnaissance
and a new term counterinfrastructure Counterinfrastructure would entail destroying
defeating disrupting or capturing hostile regime non-state actor or insurgent
infrastructure This is a more proactive type of operation than counterterrorism which is
generally reactive in nature This operational term describes the current global
interdiction of al Qarsquoida and associated movements as well as the operation taken to
168
capture former regime elements and insurgent leaders in Iraq This operation would also
include the use of surrogates
Fifth operational preparation of the environment needs to be added to the core
special operations forces core mission or more correctly operations This operation is
not unconventional warfare but an operation in and of itself that can set the conditions
for the execution of the other core tasks By making it a stand-alone mission specific
doctrine could be published for operational preparation of the environment instead of
capturing this doctrine in other core mission doctrine which adds to the confusion
Sixth if unconventional warfare becomes an overarching term for operations by
with and through indigenous or surrogate forces then the confusion over unconventional
warfare will continue A possible solution would be to define each of the Special Forces
missions separately under this umbrella term The above recommended unconventional
warfare definition would instead be used to define a new term such as support to
insurgency or STI The big three ldquoby with and throughrdquo missions would be support to
insurgency operational preparation of the environment and foreign internal defense
However the other operational terms counter-proliferation counterterrorism counter-
infrastructure direct action and special reconnaissance could also be conducted by
through and with indigenous and surrogate forces and use the same three operational
approaches as outlined for unconventional warfare When used this way they could also
fall under this overarching unconventional warfare term324
324Jones On further analysis of this problem this is a better solution than the one outlined in the Why Words Matter paper which suggested support to insurgency and operations against non-state actors would fall under this overarching term Based on the US Special Operations Command 2006 posture statement the use of surrogates and
169
Seventh this study has also highlighted a deficiency in the joint doctrinersquos
definition of insurgency The current joint definition for insurgency does not address
resistance or partisan operations against an occupier reading ldquoan organized movement
aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo325 Instead of this definition a new recommended definition for insurgency is
ldquoan organized movement or resistance aimed at the overthrow of a constituted
government or removal of an occupying power through the use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo
Finally one of the byproducts of this study was the identification of a trend which
tries to leverage ldquounconventional warfare skillsrdquo to separate Special Forces from the rest
of the special operations community326 To some these are the skills that make up the
warrior-diplomat capability of Special Forces However Special Forces soldiers use these
same skills regardless of the mission and this is what sets Special Forces apart If Special
Forces are truly ldquospecialrdquo compared to the rest of the special operations community it is
because of the nature of their training and mindset that have not been readily transferable
to other special operation forces Therefore these unconventional warfare skills are
actually Special Forces skills and should be captured in this manner to not only leverage
indigenous forces during other types of operations must be clarified based on the noted fact that direct action and counterterrorism were not listed as one of the operational missions of Special Operation Forces having been rolled up under unconventional warfare
325JP 3-0 V-13
326Rothstein 102
170
their uniqueness but also to reduce the confusion between unconventional warfare the
operation and a set of skills
Areas for Further Research
During the research of this project numerous other areas of research came to light
that warrant further study
First was the Special Forces direct action and intelligence collection focus the
most efficient use of these high-demand and low-density assets or could they have been
employed as trainers and advisors to produce a larger positive effect on the growth and
success of the Iraqi and Afghani security forces while simultaneously reducing the
insurgency
Second would a large-scale employment of Special Forces detachments be a
better long-term choice for training and advising than the conventional military training
team concept This is based on the premise that US domestic support for the prolonged
operations in Iraq is a direct reflection of continued conventional force deployments
Therefore these deployments could be shortened by using Special Forces to conduct
economy of force operations and allowing the conventional military to withdraw
Third conduct a detailed study of counterinfrastructure operations This would
include not only unilateral US efforts but host-nation partner and surrogate operations
and operations using former elements that have been ldquoturnedrdquo in what are called ldquopseudoshy
operationsrdquo
Last could a Special Forces deployable task force and the related command and
control structure and training capacity be able to develop a host nation military and
internal security forces and systems filling the role of the Multi-National Security 171
Transition Command ndashIraq This idea comes from the doctrinal based premise that an
operational detachment alpha can train equip and employ an indigenous battalion
Therefore based on a logical progression of capabilities a Special Forces company also
known as an operational detachment bravo should be able to train and advise an
indigenous brigade a Special Forces battalion an operational detachment charlie should
be capable of training and advising an indigenous division a Special Forces Group then
would be able to train and advise an indigenous Corps and a deployable Special Forces
task force headquarters such as a Joint Forces Special Operations Component
commander of appropriate general officer rank and his staff would be able to train and
advise an indigenous Army This final level would be capable and prepared to do exactly
what the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq has done but instead of
being an ad hoc organization it would be an inherent Special Forces capability and
responsibility
172
GLOSSARY
Antiterrorism Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and propert to terrorist acts to include limited response and containment by local military forces Also called AT (JP 1-02)
Biometrics The measuring of physical human features to ensure that a person once registered can be identified later even if his or her identity documents or facial characteristics change(US Army Battle Command Battle Lab) Campaign Plan A plan for a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space (JP 1-02)
Civil Administration An administration established by a foreign government in (1) friendly territory under an agreement with the government of the area concerned to exercise certain authority normally the function of the local government or (2) hostile territory occupied by United States forces where a foreign government exercises executive legislative and judicial authority until an indigenous civil government can be established Also called CA administration (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Designated Active and Reserve component forces and units organized trained and equipped specifically to conduct civil affairs activities and to support civil-military operations Also called CA (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Activities Activities performed or supported by civil affairs that (1) enhance the relationship between military forces and civil authorities in areas where military forces are present and (2) involve application of civil affairs functional specialty skills in areas normally the responsibility
Civil-Military Operations The activities of a commander that establish maintain influence or exploit relations between military forces governmental and nongovernmental civilian organizations and authorities and the civilian populace in a friendly neutral or hostile operational area in order to facilitate military operations to consolidate and achieve operational US objectives Civil-military operations may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of the local regional or national government These activities may occur prior to during or subsequent to other military actions They may also occur if directed in the absence of other military operations Civil military operations may be performed by designated civil affairs by other military forces or by a combination of civil affairs and other forces Also called CMO (JP 1-02)
Combatant Command A unified or specified command with a broad continuing mission under a single commander established and so designated by the President through the Secretary of Defense and with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of
173
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Combatant commands typically have geographic or functional responsibilities (JP 1-02)
Combatant Commander A commander of one of the unified or specified combatant commands established by the President (JP 1-02)
Combatting Terrorism Actions including antiterrorism (defensive measures taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist acts) and counterterrorism (offensive measures taken to prevent deter and respond to terrorism) taken to oppose terrorism throughout the entire threat spectrum Also called CBT (JP 1-02)
Conventional Forces (1) Those forces capable of conducting operations using nonnuclearweapons (2) Those forces other than designated special operations forces (JP 1-02)
Counterdrug Those active measures taken to detect monitor and counter the productiontrafficking and use of illegal drugs Also called CD (JP 1-02)
Counterinsurgency Those military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency Also called COIN (FM 1-02 1-47)
Counterintelligence Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage other intelligence activities sabotage or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof foreign organizations or foreign persons or international terrorists activities Also called CI (JP 1-02)
Counterterrorism Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent deter preempt and respond to terrorism Also called CT (JP 1-02)
Country Team The senior in-country US coordinating and supervising body headed by the chief of the US diplomatic mission and composed of the senior member of each represented US department or agency as desired by the chief of the US diplomatic mission (JP 1-02)
Direct Action Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions by special operations forces or special operations-capable units to seize destroy capture recover or inflict damage on designated personnel or material (FM 1-02 1-60)
Foreign Internal Defense Participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency Also called FID (JP 1-02)
Host Nation A nation that receives the forces andor supplies of allied nations coalition partners andor NATO organizations
174
Hostile Environment Operational environment in which hostile forces have control as well as the intent and capability to effectively oppose or react to the operations a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Indigenous Native originating in or intrinsic to an area or region (FM 3-0520)
Insurgency An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Interagency Coordination Within the context of Department of Defense involvement the coordination that occurs between elements of Department of Defense andengaged US Government agencies nongovernmental organizations and regional and international organizations for the purpose of accomplishing an objective (JP 1-02)
Internal Defense And Development The full range of measures taken by a nation to promote its growth and to protect itself from subversion lawlessness and insurgency It focuses on building viable institutions (political economic social and military) that respond to the needs of society Also called IDAD (JP 1-02)
Joint Task Force A joint force that is constituted and so designated by the Secretary of Defense a combatant commander a subordinate unified command commander or an existing joint task force commander Also called JTF (JP 1-02)
Military Assistance Advisory Group A joint Service group normally under the military command of a commander of a unified command and representing the Secretary of Defense which primarily administers the US military assistance
Military Civic Action The use of preponderantly indigenous military forces on projects useful to the local population at all levels in such fields as education training public works agriculture transportation communications health sanitation and others contributing to economic and social development which would also serve to improve the standing of the military forces with the population (US forces may at times advise or engage in military civic actions in overseas areas) (JP 1-02)
Military Support to Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Department of Defense activities that support US Government plans for stabilization security reconstruction and transition operations which lead to sustainable peace while advancing US interests (DoDD 300005)
Paramilitary Forces Forces or groups distinct from the regular armed forces of any country but resembling them in organization equipment training or mission (JP 1-02)
Permissive Environment Operational environment in which host country military and law enforcement agencies have control as well as the intent and capability to
175
assist operations that a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Special Operations Operations conducted by specially organized trained and equipped military and paramilitary forces to achieve military political economic or informational objectives by unconventional military means in hostile denied or politically sensitive areas (FM 1-02 1-173)
Special Operations Forces Those Active and Reserve Component forces of the Military Services designated by the Secretary of Defense and specifically organized trained and equipped to conduct and support special operations Also called SOF (JP 1-02)
Special Reconnaissance Reconnaissance and surveillance actions conducted by special operations forces to obtain or verify by visual observation or other collection methods information concerning the capabilities intentions and activities of an actual or potential enemy or to secure data concerning the meteorological hydrographic or geographic characteristics of a particular area (FM 1-02 1-174)
Stability Operations Operations that promote and protect US national interests by influencing the threat political and information dimensions of the operational environment through a combination of peacetime development cooperative activities and coercive actions in response to a crisis (FM 1-02 1-175)
Stability Operations Military and civilian activities conducted across the spectrum from peace to conflict to establish or maintain order in States and regions (DoDD 300005)
Subversion Action designed to undermine the military economic psychological or political strength or morale of a regime See also unconventional warfare (JP 1shy02)
Support to Counterinsurgency Support provided to a government in the military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions it undertakes to defeat insurgency (JP 1-02)
Support to Insurgency Support provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Surrogate someone who takes the place of or acts for another a substitute (FM 3-0520)
Terrorism The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political religious or ideological (JP 1-02)
176
Transition Point Authorrsquos definition for the point of phase shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense operations or conventionally a shift from conflict to postconflict
Uncertain Environment Operational environment in which host government forces whether opposed to or receptive to operations that a unit intends to conduct do not have totally effective control of the territory and population in the intended operational area (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Unconventional Warfare A broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes but is not limited to guerrilla warfare subversion sabotage intelligence activities and unconventional assisted recovery Also called UW (JP 1-02)
177
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams Thomas K Military Doctrine and the Organization Culture of the United States Army Ann Arbor University Microfilms 1990
________ US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998
Ancker III Clinton J Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing Fort Leavenworth KS Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005
Ancker III Clinton J and Michael D Burke ldquoDoctrine for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Military Review (July-August 2003) Available from httpwwwfindarticles comparticles mi_m0PBZis_4_83ai_109268858 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004)
Andrade Dale and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
Asprey Robert B War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994
Ayers Cynthia E ldquoIraqi Resistance to Freeedom A Frommian Perspectiverdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 68-84
Baer Robert See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001
Bailey Cecil E ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
Bank Aaron USA Colonel Retired From OSS to Green Berets New York Pocket Books 1986
Barker Geoffrey T A Concise History of US Army Special Operations Forces Fayetteville NC Anglo-American Publishing Company 1988
Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet Accessed on 3 May 2006
Bernhard Michael ldquoThe Lessons of a Successful Military Occupationrdquo Strategic Insight (May 2003)
Biddle Stephen ldquoSpecial Forces and the Future of Warfare Will SOF Predominate in 2020rdquo US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute 2004
178
Book Elizabeth ldquoRole of Special Ops Evolves Over Timerdquo National Defense Magazine February 2002 Available from httpwwwnationaldefensemagazineorgarticle cfmId=719 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004
Boyatt Mark D Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
Boykin William G ldquoVigilant Warrior 2002 War Game Demonstrates ARSOFrsquos Value to the Objective Forcerdquo Special Warfare (September 2001) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442223 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
________ Major General ldquoFrom the Commandantrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 1
Briscoe C H Dr ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
Brook Robin Sir ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992
Brown Frederic J Lieutenant General Retired ldquoAmericarsquos Army Expeditionary and Enduring-Foreign and Domesticrdquo Military Review (November-December 2003) Available from httpwwwarmymilprof_writingvolumesvolume2february_ 20042_04_4_pfhtml Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Cassidy Robert M Major ldquo41 (sic) Why Great Powers Fight Small Wars Badlyrdquo Military Review (September-October 2002 English Edition) Available from httpwwwcgscarmymilmilrevenglishSepOct02cassidyasp Internet Accessed on 31 October 2003
Cavallora Gina ldquoIraqis get the basics Drill sergeants deploy to the war zonerdquo The Army Times (June 2004) 22
CBS News ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo 15 September 2004 Available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet Accessed on 24 April 2006
Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd
Charters David and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984
179
Chiarelli Peter W Major General and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
Cline Lawrence E ldquoThe New Constabularies Planning US Military Stabilization Missionsrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 14 no 3 (Autumn 2003) 158-184
Coffey Ross Major ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
Collins John M ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 22-27
Corum James S and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003
Cox Matthew ldquorsquoThey are so undisciplinedrsquo Iraqi forces learn ropes of battle but curve is steeprdquo The Army Times 27 (September 2004) 8
Crawley Vince and Nicole Gaudiano ldquoAbu Ghraib Investigator 4th Star lsquoUnlikelyrsquo For Sanchez-CIA lsquoGhost Detaineesrsquo Raise Lawmakersrsquo Irerdquo The Army Times 20 (September 2004) 12
Crerar J H Colonel Retired US Army ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37-39
Daugherty William J Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004
Defend America News ldquoIraq Time Linerdquo Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milIraqTimeLinehtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Department of Defense 2003-2004 SOF Posture Statement Special OperationsLow-Intensity Conflict Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpolicysolic 2003_2004_SOF_Posture_Statementpdf Internet Accessed on 10 April 2004
________ Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005 Available from httpwwwdticmil futurejointwarfareconceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet Accessed on 17 February 2006
________ Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 300005 Military Support for Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations Washington DC GPO 2005
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2004 A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Available from httpwwwoftosdmil
180
librarylibrary_filesdocument_377_National20Military20Strategy201320 May2004pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
________ Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet Accessed on 8 February 2006
________ Stability Operations Joint Operating Concept September 2004 Available from httpwwwdticmiljointvisionfinalstab_jocdoc Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004)
Department of the Army and the Department of the US Air Force Field Manual 100shy20Air Force Pamphlet 3-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflicts Washington DC GPO 1990
Department of the Army Field Manual 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations Forces Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 100-5 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0520 (FM 31-20) Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 3-07 (FM 100-20) Stability Operations and Support Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 20 April 1990
________ Field Manual 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques Washington DC GPO 1971
________ Field Manual 31-20-3 Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces Washington DC GPO 1989
________ Field Manual 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 1961
________ Field Manual 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla Warfare Washington DC GPO 1951
181
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1963
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1969
________ Field Manual 90-8 Counterguerrilla Operations Washington DC GPO 1986
________ The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower-Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section I Army Strategic Planning Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section II Army Planning Priorities Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
Department of the Navy Small Wars Draft January 2004 Available from httpwww smallwarsquanticousmcmilSWMSmall20Wars20Draft20Web202pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005
Devotie Michael W Sergeant First Class ldquoUnconventional Warfare A Viable Option for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1997) 30-32
Diamond Larry ldquoWhat Went Wrong in Iraqrdquo Foreign Affairs 83 no 5 (September October 2004) 34-56
Dickson Keith D Dr ldquoThe New Asymmetry Unconventional Warfare and Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Fall 2001) 14-19
Dobbins James ldquoAfghanistanrsquos Faltering Reconstructionrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2002 Available from httprandorgcommentary091202NYThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoNation-building The Inescapable Responsibility of the Worldrsquos Only Superpowerrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2003 Available from httprandorg publicationsrandreviewissuessummer2003nation1html Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoSecuring the Peace Will Require Finesserdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary062704CRhtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
182
Dobbins James John G McGinn Keith Crane Seth G Jones Rollie Lal Andrew Rathmell Rachel Swagner and Anga Timilsina Americarsquos Role in Nation-Building From Germany to Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND 2003
Donahoe Patrick J Lt Col ldquoPreparing Leaders for Nationbuildingrdquo Military Review (May-June 2004) 24-26
Fastabend David Brigadier General ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo PowerPoint presentation slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquoprepared for Joint Forces Command TRADOC 2004
Federal News Service ldquoBriefing on Coalition Post-war Reconstruction and Stabilization Effortsrdquo (transcript) Washington DC Federal News Service Inc 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmiltranscripts2003tr20030612shy0269html Internet Accessed on 4 October 2004
Field Kimberly C and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Fischer Joseph R ldquoCut from a Different Cloth The Origins of US Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (April 1995) 29-39
Fishel John T ldquoLittle Wars Small Wars LIC OOTW The GAP and Things That Go Bump in the Nightrdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 372-398
Flavin William ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 95-112 Available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Flournoy Michegravele Interagency Strategy and Planning for Post-Conflict Reconstruction Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) March 2002 Available from httpwwwcsis orgisppcrstrategypdf Internet Accessed on 10 October 2004
Foot M R D The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984
Franks Tommy General with Malcolm McConnell American Soldier General Tommy Franks Commander in Chief United States Central Command New York Harper-Collins Publishers Inc 2004
Frizzell Art ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgoverview html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Galula David Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005
183
Garamone Jim ldquoUS Army Trains Free Iraqi Forces in Hungaryrdquo American Forces Press Service 23 February 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnews Feb2003 n022420003_200302243html Internet Accessed on 24 September 2004
Gilmore Gerry J ldquoDespite Challenges Iraqi Forces lsquoIn the Fightrsquordquo DefenseLINK News 29 September 2004 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnewsSep 2004n09292004_2004092910html Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo Available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 Available from httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraray congress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2005
Godson Roy Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004
Grau Lester W Lt Col (ret) ldquoSomething Old Something New Guerrillas Terrorists and Intelligence Analysisrdquo Military Review (July-August 2004) 42-49
________ Multiple conversations on topic with the author September 2003 to October 2004 Fort Bragg NC
________ ldquoFOB 103 Operations in Northern Iraqrdquo Slide presentation Fort Bragg NC 28 August 2003
________ (Now Lieutenant Colonel) Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Grossman Elaine M ldquoAdvisers to Rumsfeld DOD Canrsquot Sustain Current Stability Operationsrdquo Inside The Pentagon Inside Washington Publishers 23 September 2004 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetgrossman advisers_to_rumsfeldhtm Internet Accessed on 9 October 2004
Halstead Brian D CW2 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Questions Concerns and Proposalsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 29-31
Hamblet John ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg chinahtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
184
Harclerode Peter Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden London Cassell and Company 2001
Harned Glenn M Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
Heckler Jeremy Sgt ldquoIraqis Denounce Barsquoath Party en masserdquo Iraqi Destiny 1 no 57 (January 2004) 2 5
Herd Walter Colonel ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service 13 June 2005 Available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Hoffman Bruce ldquoLessons from the Past for Iraqrsquos Futurerdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary072304SDUThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
Hoffman Bruce Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND National Security Research Division 2004
Hogan David W Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II Washington DC Department of the Army 1992
Holms Richard L ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 Available from httpwwwodci govcsistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet Accessed on 18 June 2005
Horton Lynn Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 Athens GA Ohio University 1998
Hughes Patrick M ldquoGlobal Threats and Challenges The Decades Ahead Prepared Statement before the Senate Armed Services Committeerdquo 2 February 1999 Washington DC Available from wwwdefenselinkmilspeeches1999 s19990202-hugheshtml Internet Accessed on 30 August 2003
Irvin Will Lt Col (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 New York NY PublicAffairs 2005
Ivosevic Michael J CW3 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Refining the Definitionrdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1999) 39
Jaffe Greg ldquoOn Ground in Iraq Capt Ayers Writes His Own Playbook Thrust Into New Kind of War Junior Officers Become Armyrsquos Leading Experts Risky Deal with Village Sheikrdquo Wall Street Journal 22 September 2004 1-6
Jalali Ali A ldquoRebuilding Afghanistanrsquos National Armyrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2002) 72-86
185
Joes Anthony James America and Guerrilla Warfare Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000
John F Kennedy Special Warfare Training Center Around the Campfire A Discussion The War on Terror Cody WY Government Publications January 2004
Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Washington DC GPO 2001 (as amended through 9 June 2004) Available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet Accessed on 16 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination Washington DC GPO 23 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 10 September 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Doctrine for Joint Special Operations Washington GPO 2003
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD Washington DC GPO 12 April 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism Washington DC GPO 1 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs 2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet Accessed on 6 February 2006
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategy Chapter 2 The Strategic Environment-shyOpportunities and Challenges Available from wwwdticmiljcsnmsstrategihtm Internet Accessed on 3 October 2004
Joint Special Operations Insights Issues and Lessons (SIPRNET) Norfolk VA (classified website used only for reference ndash no classified information released)
Jones D Major ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo 5 February 2005 Scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
Jones Frank L ldquoArmy SOF in Afghanistan Learning the Right Lessonsrdquo Joint Force Quarterly (Winter 2002-03) 16-22
186
Jones Gary M Colonel and Major Christopher Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 4-15
Kaplan Robert D Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground New York NY Random House 2005
Kem Jack D Dr Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd
Kershner Michael R Colonel ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84-86
________ ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 2-7
Kiper Richard L Dr ldquoAn Army For Afghanistan The 1st Battalion 3rd SF Group and the Afghan Armyrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) 42-43
Kruger Kimbra L ldquoUS Military Intervention in Third World Conflict The Need for Integration of Total War and LIC Doctrinerdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 399-428
Lambert Geoffrey C Major General ldquoMajor Combat and Restoration Operations A Discussionrdquo Special Warfare (February 2004) 2-5
________ ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20-27
Language Technology Office DCD ldquoBiometrics Automated Toolset (BAT)rdquo (Briefing Slides) US Army Battle Command Battle Lab Huachuca March 2004
Lauber Mark LTC Retired Multiple discussions with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
Leever Gretha Municipal Affairs Officer United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo Multiple conversations with the author on the UNrsquos capacity to conduct postconflict operations Kosovo November 2001 to January 2002
Lewis S J Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991
Lindsay Franklin A Basic Doctrine for the Conduct of Unconventional Warfare McKinsey and Company Inc 1961
187
Linnington Abigail T Captain Unconventional Warfare as a Strategic Foreign Policy Tool The Clinton Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan Thesis The Fletcher School (Tufts University) 2004
Lomperis Timothy J From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996
Magni Frank Sgt ldquoAfghan Army Maneuvers With Task Force Broncordquo Defend America News 13 August 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesaug2004a081304ahtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Malcom Ben S Colonel Retired and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996
Maloney Sean M ldquoAfghanistan From Here to Eternityrdquo Parameters (Spring 2004) 4shy15
Manwaring Max G and John T Fishel ldquoInsurgency and Counter-Insurgency Toward a New Analytical Approachrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 3 no 3 (Winter 1992) 272-310
Marquis Susan L Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces Washington DC The Brookings Institute 1997
Marr Phebe ldquoIraq lsquoThe Day Afterrsquo Internal Dynamics in Post-Saddam Iraqrdquo Naval War College Review I VI no 1 (Winter 2003) Available from httpwwwnewnavy milpressReview2003winterpdfsart1-w03pdf Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
Materazzi Albert ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg italyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Maurer Kevin ldquoIraqis Learn To Take Up Their Own Defenserdquo Fayetteville Online 24 February 2004 Available from httpwwwfayettevilleobservercomprinter phpStory-6193578 Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
McClintock Michael Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 2002 Available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet Accessed on 21 February 2006
McCollaum Peter Major Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
McCormick Gordon Dr US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division Presentation at the Unconventional Warfare
188
Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC
McMillan Joseph ldquoBuilding an Iraqi Defense Forcerdquo Strategic Forum no 198 (June 2003) 1-7
McRaven William H SPEC OPS Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare Theory and Practice Navato CA Presidio Press 1996
Meigs Montgomery C ldquoUnorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) 4-18
Messing Major and William Shingleton National Defense Council Foundation World Conflict List 1999 Available from wwwndeforgConflict_ListWorld99html Internet Accessed on 20 February 2004
Metzgar Major Greg E ldquoUnconventional Warfare Definitions from 1950 to the Presentrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 18-23
Miksche F O Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements London Faber and Faber Limited
Miller Dean J Tech Sgt ldquoUS Teaches Georgians Command Control Skillsrdquo Defend America News 14 July 2002 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesjun2002a061402ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Miller Russell Behind the Lines The Oral History of Special Operations in World War II New York NY New American Library 2002
Morris Niger ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946rdquo BBC History Available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwosoe_printhtml Internet Accessed on 1 December 2005
Műller Kurt E ldquoToward a Concept of Strategic Civil Affairsrdquo Parameters (Winter 1998) 80-98
Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq MNSTC-I et al Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommil Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
Naylor Sean D ldquorsquoPaying the pricersquo for pulling out Commanders see a tough fight to retake Fallujahrdquo The Army Times 4 October 2004 10
Newman Dean S Major ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo Available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
189
ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
OrsquoHanlon Michael E ldquoA Flawed Masterpiece (Afghanistan Conflict 2001-)rdquo Foreign Affairs 81 no 3 (May-June 2002) 1-7
Oakley Robert B and TX Hammes ldquoSecuring Afghanistan Entering a Make-or Break Phaserdquo Strategic Forum no 205 (March 2004) 1-6
Paddock Alfred H Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Washington DC National Defense University 1982
Paddock Jr Alfred H US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Kansas University Press 2002
Prados John Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf Chicago Elephant Paperbacks 1986
Prusher Ilene R ldquoNews outlets flood Kirkuk-and satellite dish sales soar-as Husseinrsquos era of censorship crumblesrdquo Christian Science Monitor 29 April 2003 Available from httpwww csmonitorcom20030429p06s01-woiqhtml Internet Accessed on 30 October 2004
Pullen Randy Col ldquoAfghan National Army Recruiting Extends to Northeastrdquo Defense LINK News 24 September 2004 Available from httpwww defenselinkmil newsSep2004n09242004_2004092402html Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
________ ldquoNew Afghan Soldiers Pledge to Serve a Nationrdquo Defend America News 29 July 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamericamilarticlesjul2004 a072904ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Reed James W ldquoShould Deterrence Fail War Termination in Campaign Planningrdquo Parameters (Summer 1993) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmymiluaswc parameters1993reedhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Robinson Linda Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces New York NY Public Affairs 2004
________ ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 Available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Rothstein Hy S Afghanistan and the Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006
190
Salmoni Barak A ldquoIraq Now Choosing Sovereignty or Democracyrdquo Strategic Insights 3 no 8 (August 2004)
Sandler Stanley ldquoArmy Psywarriors A History of US Army Psychological Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1992) 18-25
Sandler Stanley ldquoSeal the Victory A History of US Army Civil Affairsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 1991) 38-41
Schadlow Nadia ldquoWar and the Art of Governancerdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 85-94
Schoomaker Peter J (GEN CINC US Special Operations Command) ldquoSpecial Operations Forces The Way Aheadrdquo undated 2
Sepp Kalev I Dr ldquoThe Campaign in Transition From Conventional to Unconventional Warrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) Available from httpwwwfind articlescomp articlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442212 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
Shaw Geoffery D T ldquoPolicemen versus Soldiers the Debate Leading to MAAG Objections and Washington Rejections of the Core of the British Counter-Insurgency Advicerdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 12 no 2 (Summer 2001) 15shy78
Shultz Richard H Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999
Simpson Charles M III Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years Novato CA Presido Press 1983
Singlaub John K Major General (ret) Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century New York NY Summit Books 1991
Skinner Mike ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare As an SF mission-Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16 Available from httpwwwfind articlescomparticles mi_m0HZYis_1_15ai_89646648print Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Smith Jeffrey R ldquoKosovo Still Seethes as UN Official Nears Exitrdquo The Washington Post 18 December 2000 A20 quoted in Kimberly C Field and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo Available from httpwww specialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet Accessed on 22 January 2006
191
ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo Available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtm Internet Accessed on 2 December 2005
Steele Dennis ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article onshyline] Available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet Accessed on 14 May 2006
Szelowski David W Lt Col USMCR (ret) ldquoThe Beginning of the Next Warrdquo handlebarsorg July 2003 Available from httpwwwhandlebarsorga=article printamparticleid =204 Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
The Advisor Volume 1 Multi-national Security Transition Command 11 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep11pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 2 Multi-national Security Transition Command 18 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisorTheAdvisor Sep18pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 3 Multi-national Security Transition Command 25 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep25pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Thomas Glenn CPT (now Major) Conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
Tomes Robert R ldquoRelearning Counterinsurgency Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 2004) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0IBR is_1_34ai_115566394 Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Tovo Kenneth E Major ldquoSpecial Forces Mission Focus for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (December 1996) 2-11
Unified Combatant Command for Special Operations Forces ldquoUS Code Title 10 Section 167rdquo Available from www4lawCornelleduuscode Internet Accessed on 10 January 2004
US Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 Available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet Accessed on 6 April 2006
US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978
US Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) ldquoUnconventional Warfare 2020rdquo (Power Point Presentation) No Date
192
US Army Special Operations Command ldquoMission Area Analysis for POM FY02-07rdquo Fort Bragg NC January 1999
US Army Training and Doctrine Command The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Fort Monroe VA GPO 2003
________ TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-520 Fort Monroe VA GPO 2004
US Government The 911 Commission Report Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Washington DC GPO 2004
US Marine Corps Small Wars Manual Manhattan KS Sunflower University Press 1988
Volckmann Russell Lieutenant Colonel US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951
von Clausewitz Carl On War ed and trans by Michael Howard and Peter Paret Princeton NJ Princeton University Press 1976
Warner Michael The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000 Available from httpwww ciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet Accessed on 4 December 2005
Wendt Eric P Lieutenant Colonel (P) ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
Wilcox Greg and Gary I Wilson ldquoMilitary Response to Fourth Generation Warfare in Afghanistanrdquo d-n-inet 5 May 2002 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetfcs wilson_wilcox_miltary_responsehtm Internet Accessed on 11 August 2004
Williams Thomas J ldquoStrategic Leader Readiness and Competencies for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmy miluaswcparameters03summerwilliamshtm Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Wilson Robert Lee Captain ldquoUnconventional Warfare SFrsquos Past Present and Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 24-27
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoPrepared Statement for the House Appropriations Committee Foreign Operations Subcommitteerdquo Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilspeeches 2004 sp20040429-depsecdef0303html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
193
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoThe Road Map for a Sovereign Iraqrdquo Available from httpwww defenselinkmil speeches2004sp20040609-depsecdef0463html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Woodward Bob Plan of Attack New York Simon and Schuster 2004
Yaphe Judith S ldquoTurbulent Transition in Iraq Can It Succeedrdquo Strategic Forum no 208 (June 2004) 1-8
Yardley Michael T E Lawrence A Biography New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000
ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavianhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo Available from httpwwwossog orgyugoshymainlandhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Zoroya Gregg ldquoAfghan duty offers ultimate in unconventional warfarerdquo USA Today 12 April 2004 Available from httpglobalspecopscomultunconventional warfare html Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
194
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
Combined Arms Research Library US Army Command and General Staff College 250 Gibbon Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-2314
LTC (Retired) Joseph G D Babb Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC (Retired) Mark Lauber Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
James Corum PhD Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC Chadwick W Clark Director Combined Arms Center Special Operation Forces Education 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
John C Knie Colonel SF Director of Training and Doctrine US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School Fort Bragg NC 28310
195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
1 Certification Date 16 June 2006
2 Thesis Author Major D Jones
3 Thesis Title Ending the Debate Unconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matter
4 Thesis Committcc Mcmbcrs dwltampb Signatures ylamplzampamp
5 Distribution Statement See distribution statements A-X on reverse then circle appropriate distribution statement letter code below
O B C D E F X SEE EXPLANATION OF CODES ON REVERSE
If your thesis does not fit into any of the above categories or is classified you must coordinate with the classified section at CARL
6 Justification Justification is required for any distribution other than described in Distribution Statement A All or part of a thesis may justify distribution limitation See limitation justification statements 1-10 on reverse then list below the statement(s) that applies (apply) to your thesis and corresponding chapterssections and pages Follow sample format shown below
EXAMPLE Limitation Justification Statement 1 ChapterISection I Page(s)
Direct Military Support (10) Critical Technology (3) Administrative Operational Use (7)
Chapter 3 Section 4 Chapter 2
I I I
12 31 13-32
Fill in limitation justification for your thesis below
Limitation Justification Statement ChapterSection Pagels)
7 MMAS Thesis Authors Signature f
STATEMENT A Approved for public release distribution is unlimited (Documents with this statement may be made available or sold to the general public and foreign nationals)
STATEMENT B Distribution authorized to US Government agencies only (insert reason and date ON REVERSE OF THIS FORM) Currently used reasons for imposing this statement include the following
1 Foreign Government Information Protection of foreign information
2 Proprietary Information Protection of proprietary information not owned by the US Government
3 Critical Technology Protection and control of critical technology including technical data with potential military application
4 Test and Evaluation Protection of test and evaluation of commercial production or military hardware
5 Contractor Performance Evaluation Protection of information involving contractor performance evaluation
6 Premature Dissemination Protection of information involving systems or hardware from premature dissemination
7 AdministrativeOperational Use Protection of information restricted to official use or for administrative or operational purposes
8 Software Documentation Protection of software documentation - release only in accordance with the provisions of DoD Instruction 79302
9 Specific Authority Protection of information required by a specific authority
10 Direct Military Support To protect export-controlled technical data of such military significance that release for purposes other than direct support of DoD-approved activities may jeopardize a US military advantage
STATEMENT C Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and their contractors (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT D Distribution authorized to DoD and US DoD contractors only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT E Distribution authorized to DoD only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10
STATEMENT F Further dissemination only as directed by (controlling DoD office and date) or higher DoD authority Used when the DoD originator determines that information is subject to special dissemination limitation specified by paragraph 4-505 DoD 52001-R
STATEMENT X Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and private individuals of enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical data in accordance with DoD Directive 523025 (date) Controlling DoD office is (insert)
197
Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response including the time for reviewing instructions searching existing data sources gathering andmaintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of informationincluding suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services Directorate for Information Operations and Reports 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 1204 ArlingtonVA 22202-4302 Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number
1 REPORT DATE 16 JUN 2006 2 REPORT TYPE
3 DATES COVERED
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE Ending the debate unconventional warfare foreign internal defense andwhy words matter
5a CONTRACT NUMBER
5b GRANT NUMBER
5c PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6 AUTHOR(S) D Jones
5d PROJECT NUMBER
5e TASK NUMBER
5f WORK UNIT NUMBER
7 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) US Army Command and General Staff College1 Reynolds AveFort LeavenworthKS66027-1352
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER ATZL-SWD-GD
9 SPONSORINGMONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10 SPONSORMONITORrsquoS ACRONYM(S)
11 SPONSORMONITORrsquoS REPORT NUMBER(S)
12 DISTRIBUTIONAVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release distribution unlimited
13 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The original document contains color images
14 ABSTRACT There is an ongoing debate within the Special Forces community whether unconventional warfare andforeign internal defense are applicable in the contemporary and future Special Operations environmentsbased on current doctrinal definitions and operational concepts For unconventional warfare the debatesurrounds its current broad and confusing definition and whether it can be an overarching term for effortsagainst nonstate actors in the Global War on Terrorism The foreign internal defense debate is not overdefinitions but responsibilities as the conventional military begins to play a larger role in foreign internaldefense a legacy Special Forces mission This thesis argues that unconventional warfare needs a clear andconcise definition such as operations by a state or non-state actor to support an insurgency aimed at theoverthrow of a government or occupying power that unconventional warfare should not betransformed to fight global insurgency that there is an identifiable relationship between unconventionalwarfare and foreign internal defense called the transition point signifying the change fromunconventional warfare to foreign internal defense and that this relationship can be modeled thatoperational preparation of the environment is not unconventional warfare but an emerging operationrequiring its own doctrine and that unconventional warfare foreign internal defense and operationalpreparation of the environment will be the dominate Special Forces missions in the Global War on Terrorism
15 SUBJECT TERMS
16 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 17 LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
1
18 NUMBEROF PAGES
207
19a NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON
a REPORT unclassified
b ABSTRACT unclassified
c THIS PAGE unclassified
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE
THESIS APPROVAL PAGE
Name of Candidatc Major D Jones
Thesis Title Ending the Debate Unconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matter
Approved by
Thesis Committee Chair - LTC (Retired) Joseph G D Babb MA
Member LTC (Retired) Mark Lauber MS
Member James Corum PhD
Accepted this 16th day of June 2006 by
Director Graduate Degree Programs Robert F ~ amp n PhD
The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Army Command and General Staff Collcgc or any other governmental agency (References to this study should include the foregoing statcrnent)
ABSTRACT
ENDING THE DEBATE UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE AND WHY WORDS MATTER by Major D Jones 207 pages
There is an ongoing debate within the Special Forces community whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are applicable in the contemporary and future Special Operations environments based on current doctrinal definitions and operational concepts For unconventional warfare the debate surrounds its current broad and confusing definition and whether it can be an overarching term for efforts against non-state actors in the Global War on Terrorism The foreign internal defense debate is not over definitions but responsibilities as the conventional military begins to play a larger role in foreign internal defense a legacy Special Forces mission This thesis argues that unconventional warfare needs a clear and concise definition such as ldquooperations by a state or non-state actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or occupying powerrdquo that unconventional warfare should not be ldquotransformedrdquo to fight global insurgency that there is an identifiable relationship between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense called the ldquotransition pointrdquo signifying the change from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense and that this relationship can be modeled that operational preparation of the environment is not unconventional warfare but an emerging operation requiring its own doctrine and that unconventional warfare foreign internal defense and operational preparation of the environment will be the dominate Special Forces missions in the Global War on Terrorism
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In the fall of 2003 I began developing ideas presented in this thesis while trying
to explain the doctrinal differences between unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense to twelve of my student officers enrolled in the third phase of the Special Forces
Officer Qualification Course It is hard to believe three years later that this project has
finally reached fruition This thesis would not have been possible without the support of
the following
First God for all the blessings He has provided me especially my awesome wife
and amazing children that have suffered the most in the last year while I worked on this
project Since we are a Special Forces family I will observe operational security and not
mention them by name but I want to thank them for their patience love and sacrifices
over the last year My wife deserves special recognition for the long hours of proofshy
reading She now knows more about UW and FID than many of my contemporaries
Bottom line is that without God and family I would not be where I am today
Second my heartfelt thanks goes to my thesis committee--Geoff Babb Dr James
Corum and Mark Lauber Thank you for your diligence patience and long hours reading
and providing comments on this lengthy thesis Without your help and expertise in this
subject area this thesis would not have been realized
Third thanks to my staff group advisor instructor team and oral comprehensive
exam committee members for their outstanding support and professionalism Tim
McKane Dr James Willbanks LTC James Beck Major David Stephan Dennis
Hanrahan and Major Cory Peterson I would also like to thank the highly dedicated
iv
CGSC special operation detachment instructors led by LTC Chadwick Clark for their
continued support and encouragement throughout the year I could not have been blessed
with a better group of instructors
Fourth I would also like to thank my Special Forces mentors whom have had the
most profound effect on my understanding of this topic--LTC Mark Grdovic LTC
Jonathan Burns Colonel Kenneth Tovo and Major General Sidney Shachnow I would
also be remiss if I did not thank all of the noncommissioned officers whom I have been
blessed to learn from since I have been in Special Forces especially my old team
members and assistant small group instructors The experiences shared with these
unconventional warriors and leaders have allowed me to put my real world experiences
into context and develop the theories presented in the thesis
Finally I would like to thank all who endured my ranting and raving on this
subject over the last three years especially other Special Forces officers former students
fellow small group instructors staff group 5B and a number of unsuspecting targets of
opportunity who received the verbal executive summary of this project whenever one of
them ventured into my range fan Each one of these opportunities to express the points of
this thesis helped me form my arguments
De Oppresso Liber
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ACRONYMS ix
ILLUSTRATIONS x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Research Questions11 Assumptions11 Limitations 11 Scope and Delimitations 12 Significance of this Study 13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE22
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine23 Introduction23 The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries25 The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors 28 Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation29 Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History31 Special Operations Executive Summary35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare36 Introduction36 Special Operation Branch 38 The Jedburghs 39 Detachment 101 40 The Operational Groups42 Office of Strategic Services Summary47
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations 49 Introduction49 The Three Disciplines 52 Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability 55
vi
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations 56 Eastern Europe 1949-195657 Korea60 Tibet 63 Cuba 64 Laos65 Vietnam67 Nicaragua 69 Afghanistan and the Soviets70 Central Intelligence Agency Summary73
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 73 Doctrinal Developments 73 The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model96
South Vietnam 100 North Vietnam 102 El Salvador104 Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan107 Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines 109 Operation Iraqi Freedom110 Summary 114
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS115
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare115 Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition 115 Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare120
Foreign Internal Defense126 Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition 126
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 128 Logical Lines of Operations129
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation 131 Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 134 Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 137
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 138 The Transition Curve Model142
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq 145 Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model149
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 151 Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency 160 Summary 161
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 163
vii
Conclusion 163 Recommendations165 Areas for Further Research 171
GLOSSARY 173
BIBLIOGRAPHY178
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 196
viii
ACRONYMS
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
COI Coordinator of Information
CORDS Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support
DET 101 Detachment 101
DOD Department of Defense
FMLN Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front
JP Joint Publication
MI6 Military Intelligence (UK)
NORSO Norwegian Special Operations
OG Operational Groups
OPATT Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams
OSS Office of Strategic Services
SO Special Operation
SOE Special Operations Executive
US United States
USASFC United States Army Special Forces Command
VCI Viet Cong Infrastructure
ix
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model 96
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines132
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation 136
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model137
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model144
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)146
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) 148
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed150
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model160
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a definition is to clarify The term or concept in question should be more understandable once its definition has been presented Generally the ideal definition should leave little or no room for ambiguity1
David Charters and Maurice Tugwell
If you spend more than 30 seconds debating what it means it isnrsquot clear enough for the users2
Clinton JAncher III
Since its birth in 1952 Special Forces have had the exclusive responsibility
within the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct unconventional warfare Joint
Publication (JP) 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms defines unconventional warfare as
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion3
1David Charters and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz (Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984) 29
2Clinton J Ancker III Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing (Fort Leavenworth KS Director of the Armyrsquos Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005)
3Department of Defense Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet accessed on 16 December 2005
1
Although not clear in this definition doctrinally and historically unconventional
warfare is ldquothe culmination of successful [military] efforts to organize and mobilize the
civil populous against a hostile government or an occupying powerrdquo4 United States (US)
Army unconventional warfare doctrine also has an addition not found in the joint
definition stating that this operation is ldquopredominantly conducted through by and with
indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo5 A comparison between the current unconventional
warfare definition and the definition from 1955 highlights how little has changed in over
fifty years
[O]perations conducted in time of war behind enemy lines by predominantly indigenous personnel responsible in varying degrees to friendly control or direction in furtherance of military and political objectives It consists of the interrelated fields of guerrilla warfare evasion and escape and subversion against hostile states6
US unconventional warfare has historically been used in one of two ways either
to support or shape the environment for the larger conventional campaign or as a
unilateral effort generally conducted covertly7 Examples of unconventional warfare
shaping for conventional military operations are well known such as the Allied support
to the resistances in France the Balkans and the Far East in World War II and most
recently in Northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom Unilateral unconventional
4Department of the Army FM 3-0520 Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 26 June 2001) 2-1
5Ibid This version of the definition is also used in FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 1-1
6Colonel (ret) Aaron Bank From OSS to Green Beret The Birth of Special Forces (New York NY Pocket Books 1986) 179
7FM 3-0520 2-3
2
warfare efforts have been much less well known mostly due to their covert nature but
include operations behind the Iron Curtain to develop resistance capabilities in
Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s and again in Afghanistan after the events of
11 September during Operation Enduring Freedom
The unilateral examples cited above have primarily been conducted by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) which also maintains a covert unconventional warfare
capability referred to as paramilitary operations or special operations8 As William
Daugherty notes that for the CIA a special operation ldquomeans paramilitary operations-shy
military-type actions utilizing non-military personnel [indigenous personnel or
surrogates]rdquo9 The CIA has generally been responsible for conducting covert
unconventional warfare as a tool of foreign policy when the president wants to have
plausible deniability especially during peacetime Covert operations are ldquoplanned and
executed to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor A covert
operation differs from a clandestine operation in that the emphasis is placed on
concealment of the operationrdquo10 In times of conflict when military forces are employed
the DOD takes the lead responsibility for unconventional warfare The CIA conducted
numerous covert paramilitary activities during the Cold War against communist regimes
and most recently shaped the environments in Afghanistan and Iraq for Special Forces to
conduct successful unconventional warfare
8William J Daugherty Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004) 15 84-85
9Ibid 15
10FM 3-0520 Glossary 7-8
3
In the early 1960rsquos President Kennedy called upon Special Forces to use its
unconventional warfare skills and knowledge developed to support an insurgency to
defeat the Cold War communist-sponsored insurgencies or wars of national revolutions
threatening to expand globally if not checked This new mission was called foreign
internal defense and was successfully prosecuted by Special Forces teams at the tactical
and operational levels of the Vietnam War JP 1-02 defines foreign internal defense as
ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action
programs taken by another government to free and protect its society from subversion
lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo11 JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes foreign internal defense into three types of
support
Indirect--focuses on building strong national infrastructure through economic and military capabilities that contribute to self sufficiencyrdquo12
Direct (not involving combat operations)--the involvement of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populous or military13
Combat--the use of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populace or military14
As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories represent significantly different levels of US
diplomatic and military commitment and riskrdquo15
11JP 1-02
12Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
13Ibid
14Ibid
4
At the same time President Kennedy tasked the CIA with the same mission but
conducted clandestinely The clandestine foreign internal defense mission would later be
known as ldquospecial activitiesrdquo16 As William Daugherty explains
The CIArsquos paramilitary cadre is most often employed in training foreign military and security forces however training that falls under the rubric of special activities but which requires the support of the Agencyrsquos covert action infrastructure--rather than actual combat operations--was by far the most common mission of the paramilitary element17
Even though the CIA mission presented here seems confusing the covert finding is the
constraining document that provides the detailed operational limitations and political
goals alleviating any confusion
By the end of Vietnam Special Forces had also conducted special reconnaissance
against the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos and Cambodia and direct action in the highly-
publicized raid on the Son Tay prison camp in an attempt to rescue American prisoners of
war which would later be added to Special Forces doctrine as personnel recovery With
the strategic military and political failure of Vietnam Special Forces tried to distance
itself from foreign internal defense which carried with it the stigma of Vietnam At the
same time Special Forces all but forgot about its unconventional warfare roots because
the likelihood of successfully conducting unconventional warfare in the nuclear age
seemed remote Instead Special Forces focused on less politically-charged missions
such as special reconnaissance and direct action which both fit nicely in the operations
plans of the Cold War
15Ibid I-4
16Daugherty 85
17Ibid 84-85
5
In the 1980s Special Forces conducted foreign internal defense to defeat an
insurgency in El Salvador and Honduras and provided support to the CIArsquos covert
unconventional warfare efforts to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras
in Nicaragua All of these operations proved successful although Special Forces had only
been utilized in a supporting role during the two unconventional warfare campaigns The
success in El Salvador began a string of successes for Special Forces conducting special
reconnaissance direct action and foreign internal defense in places such as Panama
Desert Storm Bosnia and Kosovo adding other missions such as combat search and
rescue and coalition support to its repertoire as well By 2001 few thought that
unconventional warfare would ever be conducted again and there were numerous studies
to determine the relevancy of unconventional warfare in future conflicts18 In the summer
of 2001 senior Special Forces leadership attempted to ensure continued Special Forces
viability by placing all Special Forces missions under a broad category of unconventional
warfare These included not only Special Forcesrsquo missions to date but now included
counterproliferation combating terrorism and the other collateral activities such as
humanitarian demining operations and coalition support19 However their efforts would
be disrupted by the terrorist attacks of 11 September
Less than two years later Special Forces had successfully prosecuted two
unconventional warfare campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan
using indigenous forces instead of massive conventional formations and the other a
18Colonel Michael R Kershner ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84
19FM 3-0520 2-1
6
shaping operation in northern Iraq using the indigenous Kurdish insurgents to fix thirteen
of twenty Iraqi divisions north of Baghdad lessening the burden on the conventional
combined forces land component commandrsquos southern invasion force Now in the
postconflict phase of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Special Forces should
doctrinally be conducting foreign internal defense helping the indigenous government
forces to defeat internal threats in an attempt to secure the environment and allow the
political processes to develop
To date however Special Forces have been primarily employed in unilateral
actions focused on ldquokill or capturerdquo missions This unilateral employment has all but
negated the force multiplying capability inherent in Special Forces operations through
training and advising indigenous government security forces Instead the conventional
Army has taken on the majority of the training and advising roles in both theaters
Although Special Forces touts working by with and through indigenous forces as its
core competency Special Forces found ways to remove itself from the burden of training
and advising indigenous conventional units in Iraq and Afghanistan Using the Global
War on Terrorism as a reason a similar pattern of passing missions to Marines or
contractors is evident in other foreign internal defense operations such as the Georgian
train and equip mission and the African Crisis Response Initiative now referred to as
ACOTA or African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance20
20GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 available from
7
As of the spring of 2006 the debate continues throughout the Special Forces
community as to whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
are still applicable in todayrsquos contemporary operating environment and future conflicts
Studies being conducted seem to continue to suggest that current unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine and definitions need to be ldquotransformedrdquo for a new
application against non-state actors This is a new twist on an old debate However all of
these studies seem to gloss over the fact that in Afghanistan and Iraq unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense have been the primary operations being conducted
by Special Forces
The success of these operations with regards to Special Forcesrsquo efforts is due to
the application of legacy unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
Therefore current attempts to redefine and apply these doctrinal operations in an effort to
ldquotransformrdquo them for the current operations against non-state actors such as al Qarsquoida and
its associated movements have been difficult for one simple reason--historically and
doctrinally unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are only applicable to a
single nation state not a non-state entity21 These operations were never meant for
anything other than supporting insurgencies and or defeating insurgencies within a nation
httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraraycongress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2005
21Spelling convention for al Qarsquoida used throughout thesis comes from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet accessed on 6 February 2006
8
state and thus have proven themselves to be just as applicable today as in the days of their
inception
In both Iraq and Afghanistan unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
have been operationally linked as never before At some point in time during both of
these operations combat operations shifted to stability operations and with this shift
Special Forces should have changed mission orientation from unconventional warfare to
foreign internal defense However few within the special operations community
identified this transition and continued to define Special Forces operations in both
theaters as unconventional warfare The major obstacle to understanding this linkage is
the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be high-intensity combat theaters nothing like
the low-intensity or traditional peacetime foreign internal defense missions in theaters
like Columbia Thailand or the hundreds of other countries that Special Forces conduct
foreign internal defense as part of the geographic combatant commanderrsquos theater
security cooperation plan
The last historical example of a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense was in France the Balkans and Southeast Asia at the end of World War
II when the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and British Special Operations
Executive (SOE) conducted operations to weaken the occupying Axis powers However
even these case studies are flawed because there was almost no US involvement in the
postwar stability operations in these countries after World War II Germany and France
were the only two countries that the US conducted full-scale stability security transition
and reconstruction operations but since there were no viable resistance organizations for
the OSS and the SOE to support they are of no use to this study In the countries in
9
which OSS and SOE had operated the resistance apparatus was either demobilized-shy
disarmed paid and returned to civilian status or turned over the newly re-established
governments Therefore no relationships between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense were established which led to ldquodemobilizationrdquo becoming part of the
legacy of US unconventional warfare doctrine
Current foreign internal defense doctrine was developed out of Special Forces
experience from communist wars of national liberation in Vietnam and Latin America as
well as US nation building efforts in countries like Haiti Bosnia and Kosovo Special
Forces did not conduct unconventional warfare--US sponsored insurgency--during these
operations even though its mode of operation may have been by through and with
indigenous forces
Understanding the distinction between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense will be extremely important with the adoption of pre-emption and regime
removal as doctrinal concepts The US military has to be ready for the same kinds of
operations that it has observed since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom where there are unconventional warfare efforts in pre-conflict
and conflict phases which then transition to foreign internal defense operations in the
postconflict phases and finally return to peacetime engagement In developing future
major campaign and operational plans understanding the roles of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as well as how and when these two missions are related will
be extremely important for the planner A solid doctrinal model for this relationship may
be the basis for joint and interagency coordination throughout the campaign
10
Research Questions
The primary research question this thesis will answer is if unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as currently defined are still applicable to current and future
Special Forcesrsquo operations To answer the primary question three secondary questions
must be answered what are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and
how are they related In answering the secondary question of what unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense are similar tertiary questions must be answered for
each what is the doctrinal and operational history of Special Forces and CIA with respect
to these two missions what is their application against non-state actors and global
insurgency and should they be redefined With regards to the secondary question on the
interrelation of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense the tertiary
questions are Is there an identifiable transition point between the two and can a
relationship be modeled
Assumptions
The major assumption of this research project is that the simple meanings of
words can have a significant effect on the operational employment of Special Forces and
are not just a matter of semantics Another assumption is that senior Special Forces
leaders will be willing to address the findings of this project if they are contrary to current
thoughts and frameworks
Limitations
This thesis is written as an unclassified manuscript using public information that
is available through the Combined Arms Research Library and other electronic and
11
internet databases that are generally available to the public Although the research may be
in the classified and unclassified realm only unclassified materials and references will be
used in the thesis All references will be listed in the bibliography for further research of
the reader
Case studies used in the research and presentation of this thesis will be studied
through secondary sources and will not involve visits to the battlefield or areas of
operations due to lack of dedicated funding for such study In case studies related to
Kosovo or the efforts in Northern Iraq first hand knowledge may be relied upon and
checked with other sources
Scope and Delimitations
This study will assess current unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine of the US Army Special Forces and joint doctrine This study will also address
the current missions that are being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan and compare them
to other unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense missions from history
Classified missions or units will not be discussed by name although unclassified terms
for these missions and elements may be included This may lead to confusion for some
readers that lack special operations background and therefore will be avoided as much
as possible This study will also describe joint and interagency relationships necessary for
Special Forces employment during unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
This study will not describe in detail the other core tasks of Special Forces unless they
have a direct bearing on some finding or recommendation This study will use Special
Forces throughout due to the historical significance of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense to Special Forces The Special Forces branch is the proponent for 12
unconventional warfare doctrine as well However special operations forces could be
used interchangeably where Special Forces are used to describe operations from 1990 to
today
Significance of this Study
The current trend in the Special Forces community is to use unconventional
warfare as an overarching term to describe any operation conducted by through or with
indigenous or surrogate forces even operations that are clearly not aimed at the
overthrow or removal of a hostile government or occupying power Some reasons for
using the term unconventional warfare are to ensure a niche mission for special
operations forces it is a popular term today for the civilian leadership who view
unconventional warfare as the opposite of conventional warfare fitting nicely into the
Global War on Terrorism and a broad definition would seem to un-constrain Special
Forces operations since all missions could invariably be called unconventional and gain
larger political and budgetary support The last point was evident in the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review that recommended a significant increase in special
operations forces to prosecute the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo campaign22
Based on Special Forcesrsquo contemporary experiences the continued
misunderstanding of unconventional warfare and the resulting attempts to redefine it as
an overarching term may have unforeseen and unanticipated consequences on todayrsquos
battlefield and in future campaigns For example the rules of engagement in ldquoclassicrdquo
22Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report (6 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
13
unconventional warfare aimed at overthrowing or removing a government is much less
restrictive than the rules of engagement in a foreign internal defense mission23 In the
latter mission the rules of engagement are very restrictive Thus using unconventional
warfare as an overarching term could have ramifications in places where Special Forcesrsquo
efforts are purely to train and advise a host nation to deny sanctuary to its enemies In this
case the restrictions keep US military efforts from being directly employed such as in
Colombia The rules of engagement are directly tied to the most important word when
dealing with operations that require the support of the local populations and international
opinion legitimacy
For the US to support an insurgency or to support a government fighting an
insurgency the question of legitimacy is primary According to Timothy J Lomperis ldquoan
insurgency is a political challenge to a regimersquos authority by an organized and violent
questioning of the regimersquos claims to legitimacyrdquo24 Based on this definition when the
US is conducting unconventional warfare in support of an insurgency it is also
challenging the legitimacy of the regime and may be using conventional military means
as well When the US is supporting a government using foreign internal defense then it is
supporting the claims of legitimacy of the host nation Based on the recent experiences in
Iraq and Afghanistan it is obvious that at some point when the transition from conflict to
postconflict or unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The US military
23Major Peter McCollaum Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
24Timothy J Lomperis From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam (Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996) 33
14
must constrain its use of military action to legitimize its efforts and those of the new
government Not understanding this leads to the misuse of its firepower-centric
conventional military capabilities that ultimately decrease ones legitimacy This point is
highlighted in JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal
Defense
The nature of US tactical participation in HN[Host Nation] internal conflicts requires judicious and prudent rules of engagement (ROE) and guidelines for the application of force Inappropriate destruction and violence attributed to US forces may easily reduce the legitimacy and sovereignty of the supported government In addition these incidents may be used by adversaries to fuel anti-American sentiments and assist the cause of the opposition25
This is further evidenced by the outcry over the use of ldquotorturerdquo to gather intelligence the
environment has changed and legitimacy may be more important for long-lasting support
than the short-term gains of torture
The purpose of this thesis is to clarify the doctrine and attempt to end the nearly
fifty-five year old debate determine the relationship of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense and determine what the application of these two missions will be
in the Global War on Terrorism In this ldquolong warrdquo as Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld calls it understanding exactly what kind of operation is being undertaken and
the environment will be critical for maintaining legitimacy of US efforts and those of
friendly insurgencies and governments to maintain local regional and international
support for the Global War on Terrorism
25JP 3-071 I-14
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are numerous sources available on both the topics of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense These sources include books professional civilian
journal articles military doctrinal manuals and military journals specifically Special
Warfare magazine produced by the United States John F Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School The use of unconventional warfare in these publications runs the
gambit from describing support to insurgency to the use of special operations forces
conducting unilateral operations In some cases counterinsurgency is also described as a
component of unconventional warfare The literature review shows that there is obviously
a lot of confusion on terms and definitions related to unconventional warfare
The most current information on unconventional warfare and Special Forces
operations can be found in three different manuals The first is US Army Field Manual
(FM) 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations (1999) the second is Change 1 FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations (2004) and third FM 3-05201 Special Forces
Unconventional Warfare Operations (2003) All three manuals use the unconventional
warfare definition found in the 2001 Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Currently the final draft of the newest FM
3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare is being reviewed Due to its final
draft status and classification none of the newest changes will be directly addressed in
this thesis There is currently no joint doctrine for unconventional warfare
16
Some of the useful historical unconventional warfare related documents are the
FM 31-20 series of manuals (1961 and 1965) These manuals are the last ldquountaintedrdquo
versions prior to the lessons and doctrine from Special Forces involvement in Vietnam
being incorporated into doctrine The Special Forces manuals after 1965 increasingly
show the effects of mission creep and a graying of unconventional warfare and
counterinsurgency It was out of this confusion that todayrsquos broad unconventional warfare
definition arose
In the summer of 2001 the United States Army Special Forces Command
(USASFC) completed a study called Unconventional Warfare 2020 The aim of the study
was to define Special Forcesrsquo future concepts and ensure relevancy for the force as the
Army was concurrently conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates as part of
Joint Vision 2020 now referred to as ldquotransformationrdquo Colonel Michael Kershner
former Deputy Commander of USASFC summarized the findings of this study in a
series of articles such as the one that appeared in the Winter 2001 edition of Special
Warfare titled ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military
Operationsrdquo However the events of 11 September would put these efforts on hold In
2003 the newest version of next FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare
Operations was published This version should have captured the findings from the
Unconventional Warfare 2020 study but in fact they had been lost To date they have not
been addressed with the focus now turned towards the application of unconventional
warfare against non-state actors
Foreign internal defense references are even more plentiful and the term more
commonly understood The volume of work on this subject is due to the renewed interest
17
in the subject based on the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the
publication of the DOD Directive 300005 titled Military Support for Stability Security
Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) However there are few works that address
foreign internal defense in a high-intensity environment Others only describe foreign
internal defense as training missions in support of host nation governments
There are two excellent foreign internal defense manuals FM 21-20-3 Foreign
Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces published in
1994 and the Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense which was updated in early 2004 These manuals are the
clearest and most concise documents dealing with foreign internal defense This is most
likely due to the fact that foreign internal defense doctrine is much more black and white
than unconventional warfare doctrine An extremely detailed historical study of the
development of US counterinsurgency doctrine leading up to the formal foreign internal
defense doctrine can be found in Larry Cablersquos book Conflict of Myths The Development
of American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War published in 1986
There are no sources that address any type of transition between the
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense There are however some
references to the transition or termination point between conflict and postconflict
operations of conventional forces that may be applicable to defining the unconventional
warfare to foreign internal defense transition The most significant problem with these
studies is that they were written prior to 11 September and focus on the termination of
combat operations versus the termination of hostilities or the return to peacetime
engagement
18
Special Warfare magazine also provides a sense of past and current trends of
understanding of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense from the
perspective of Special Forces concept and doctrinal development The large body of
articles in Special Warfare highlights the confusion surrounding unconventional warfare
The most recent example of senior Special Forces leader misunderstanding
unconventional warfare is found in the May 2004 Special Warfare in which now retired
Major General Geoffrey C Lambert former commanding general of the Special Warfare
Center and School explains that ldquoSpecial Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare
which includes counterinsurgency [authorsrsquo emphasis] and guerrilla warfarerdquo
A more recent issue April 2005 had an article titled ldquoOperation White Star A
UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo by Major Dean S Newman in which he
describes the use of unconventional warfare to fight insurgencies and terrorism His
premise is based on his historical analysis of the White Star program a clandestine CIA
special activity program to support indigenous Laotian Hmong tribesmen to disrupt North
Vietnamese Ho Chi Minh Trail and sanctuary areas inside of Laos While commonly
referred to as an unconventional warfare program by many historians and authors White
Star was actually a clandestine foreign internal defense operation using an indigenous
element to fight an insurgency when the host nation government did not want to get
involved The article is fraught with contradictions and misuse of terms and ideas Had
Major Newman approached this topic from the point of view that the North Vietnamese
were ldquooccupyingrdquo these Laotian sanctuary areas and that the Laotian government was
unable to regain control he may have been able to substantiate his argument that White
19
Star was an unconventional warfare operation However his argument that
unconventional warfare can be used against an insurgency is still an oxymoron
One of the best sources on the future of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense is Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-3-520
Military Operations Future Force Concepts for Army Special Operations Forces dated
14 January 2004 This pamphlet provides the conceptual foundation for the
transformation current Special Forces operations into what is referred to as full spectrum
Special Forces operations In the full spectrum Special Forces operations concept
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are two of the three major mission
sets This is a departure from the Unconventional Warfare 2020 findings since it once
talks specifically of two separate missions unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense This publication was not published by the doctrine branches of the Special
Warfare Center and School which may account for its significant departure from the
mainstream of Special Forces doctrine published by the Special Warfare Center
Historical references for unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are
mostly detailed studies of the history of Special Forces An example of this is Thomas
Adamsrsquo US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional
Warfare Susan Marquisrsquo Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations
Forces and most recently Hy Rothsteinrsquos Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of
Unconventional Warfare published in 2006 The best book for understanding the original
intent of unconventional warfare is found in Colonel Aaron Bankrsquos autobiography From
OSS to Green Berets Bank who recently died at the age of 101 was known as the
ldquofather of Special Forcesrdquo His book describes in detail how he worked on developing the
20
Special Forces in the early 1950s This is one of the few primary sources from one of the
original authors of Special Forces doctrine With respect to foreign internal defense
primary sources Charles Simpson provides an excellent account of the first thirty years
of Special Forces in his book Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years
There have also been numerous Command and General Staff College Master of
Military Art and Science and School of Advanced Military Studies thesis papers on both
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and their application across the
spectrum of operations One School of Advanced Military Studiesrsquo thesis by Major Duke
C Shienle provides some insight on the use of indigenous forces developed for
unconventional warfare in the postconflict phase and uses ldquounconventional operationsrdquo to
highlight the overarching use of indigenous forces in both missions He also suggests
renaming the final phase of unconventional warfare from demobilization to postconflict
to highlight the use of indigenous forces in both environments
Review of the literature indicates there are no definitive studies that answer the
questions proposed here Indeed most of the literature on these topics have not provided
suitable definitions of unconventional warfare and continue to demonstrate a lack of
common understanding or agreement as to what unconventional warfare is With respect
to foreign internal defense numerous articles have been written on this subject but none
have presented options for the employment of Special Forces found in this thesis and no
articles have been written on trying to redefine foreign internal defense Finally no
articles have been written that have tried to explain the relationship between
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
21
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE
The purpose of this research is to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense as traditionally defined are still applicable to Special Forces operations
in the contemporary and future operating environments This chapter will begin to answer
the tertiary research question ldquoWhat is the doctrinal and operational history of the
Special Forces and the CIA with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defenserdquo This will be accomplished using three research methods doctrinal
development comparison historical comparison and case studies
The doctrinal development and historical comparisons will be intertwined due to
the nature of this subject in which doctrine and historical developments happened
concurrently This study will chronicle the doctrinal development of US unconventional
warfare from the British development of this concept prior to World War II to todayrsquos
operations The comparison will be made in relation to the SOE the OSS the CIA and
finally the US Army Special Forces This construct was chosen because it allowed the
chronological development of unconventional warfare doctrine and practice from the
original concepts developed by the forefathers of the British SOE to the establishment of
the American OSS and the growing and employment pains of unconventional warfare in
World War II
The study will then focus on the sometimes rough transition from the OSS to the
CIA and the history of the agencyrsquos use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense up to the events of 11 September As for the Special Forces the study will
22
analyze the history of Special Forces and with respect to unconventional warfare and
later foreign internal defense from the initial concepts for a military unconventional
warfare capability in the early 1950 to the present
Each historical analysis will be summarized with respect to the type of operation-shy
unconventional warfare or foreign internal defense the signature of the operation--overt
to covert the operational relationship--decisive or shaping and finally the operations
approach--indirect direct and combat--the same support pattern from foreign internal
defense doctrine Lastly in the unconventional warfare cases an analysis will also be
made as to the mode of transition of the resistance forces whether they were
demobilized turned over to the government immediately or if US efforts or ties to the
organization were stopped with no transitory event
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
Introduction
World War I witnessed the first modern use of unconventional warfare as an
economy of force operation by both the British and Germans in peripheral campaigns
outside of continental Europe In essence unconventional warfare is the support to an
indigenous insurgent or resistance group aimed at overthrowing a constituted government
or an occupying power respectively Unconventional warfare can be used to support to
resistance elements also known as partisans resisting an occupier as an economy of
force during major operations by forcing the commitment of enemy conventional forces
to guarding rear areas instead of being employed on the front lines
The primary benefit of unconventional warfare is the disproportionate resources
that a government or an occupier is forced to commit against a relatively weak opponent 23
The insurgent if employed correctly maintains the initiative by deciding the time and
place of its attacks In other words they never conduct an operation unless success is
likely or outweighs the risk to the insurgent movement For the hostile government or
occupier large amounts of resources including personnel money and equipment are
necessary to secure lines of communication key facilities and capabilities and key
terrain When in support of a conventional military effort these enemy resources are kept
from being deployed to main conventional battle areas By World War II unconventional
warfare had become a great threat to modern armies because of their ldquoabsolute
dependence on industrial and economic bases in their rear and on lines of
transportationrdquo26
During World War I unconventional warfare was used by both the British and the
Germans The young British Captain (later Colonel) T E Lawrence an advisor to Sherif
Feisal the future King of Iraq used the Arab Army to help the British defeat the Turks27
In East Africa the German Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck commanded a
guerrilla army of 14000 which successfully tied down the efforts of 160000 British
Portuguese and Belgian troops28 Both of these efforts were successful not due to the
tactical outcome of their efforts to support partisan forces but at the operational and
strategic level by diverting enemy forces from other fronts Both of these efforts proved
26F O Miksche Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements (London Faber and Faber Limited) 35
27Michael Yardley T E Lawrence A Biography (New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000) 83-84
28Robert B Asprey War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History (New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994) 174
24
the concept of supporting indigenous resistance elements but given the scale and
devastation of World War I especially on the Western Front the British failed to initially
assimilate these lessons into their doctrine assuming that the next great power war would
not occur for at least ten years29
During the interwar years unconventional warfare was virtually forgotten until
the rise of Adolph Hitler energized the study of unconventional warfare by the British
These studies began in 1938 when Adolph Hitler annexed Austria and the British began
to look seriously at the possibility of another war against Germany The British War
Office driven by the impending German threat to Europe tasked individuals each with
varying degrees of experience in irregular warfare to study irregular capabilities and
operations as well as to develop operational concepts for the employment of such forces
To their credit they produced extraordinary results considering the complexity of these
types of operations As a result of these studies the British developed the SOE in midshy
1940
The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries
One of the first individuals to be tasked with the detailed study of unconventional
warfare concepts was Major Lawrence Grand assigned under Admiral ldquoQuexrdquo Sinclair
the head of the British Secret or Special Intelligence Service to look at ldquothe theory of
secret offensives how could enemies be attacked otherwise than by the usual military
meansrdquo30 Simultaneously other officers were given similar tasks and as happens with
29M R D Foot The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 (London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984) 9
30Ibid 10-11 25
projects surrounded in secrecy none of them knew of the parallel efforts From this
emerged another unconventional warfare visionary Lieutenant Colonel J C F Holland
who became interested in ldquoirregular warfarerdquo based on his experiences in Ireland and his
first-hand knowledge of the T E Lawrencersquos operations against the Turks As M R D
Foot describes Hollandrsquos studies
[He] collected reports on Boer tactics in the South African war on Lawrence and his partners on guerilla activities in the Russian civil war the Spanish Civil War the struggle between China and Japan the smouldering [sic] Arab-Jewish conflicts in Palestine and of course on Ireland31
Holland became an advocate of irregular warfare which at the time included guerrilla
warfare and psychological operations and had sufficient backing by the deputy director
of British Intelligence that his ideas would become the foundation of the yet-to-beshy
formed SOE
Another visionary that would tie all of these studies together was Sir Colin
Gubbins Described by S J Lewis as ldquoone of the most important personalities of the
SOErdquo Gubbins would later rise to distinction as the commander of the SOE32 Gubbins
wrote two field manuals or pamphlets The Art of Guerrilla Warfare and Partisan
Leadersrsquo Handbook both of which would become the core training documents for future
SOE operatives33
The final visionary and a man with sufficient knowledge and political influence to
provide the strategic vision for an organization such as the SOE was Dr Hugh Dalton
31Ibid 11-12
32S J Lewis Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 (Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991) 3
33Ibid
26
who was the Minister of Economic Warfare in 1940 After a meeting in mid-July of
1940 aimed at trying to decide who would head an organization for conducting irregular
warfare Dalton wrote a letter that laid out the intent of such an organization and a basic
strategy for its employment As Dalton explained ldquoWe have got to organize movements
in enemy-occupied territory comparable to the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland [and] to
the Chinese Guerillas now operating against Japanrdquo34 He described this organization
as a ldquodemocratic internationalrdquo and suggested that it ldquomust use many different methods
including industrial and military sabotage labour agitation and strikes continuous
propaganda terrorist acts against traitors and German leaders boycotts and riotsrdquo35 He
suggested that there needed to be ldquoa new organization to co-ordinate inspire control and
assist the nationals of oppressed countries who must themselves be the direct participants
We need absolute secrecy a certain fanatical enthusiasm willingness to work with
people of different nationalities [and] complete political reliabilityrdquo36 Dalton would
become SOErsquos first chairman responsible to the chief of staff of the War Cabinet who
would provide him with the strategic intent for SOE operations He was ordered by
Churchill to ldquoset Europe ablazerdquo37
While there were others that were involved in the development of the SOE these
four visionaries stand out as the most important to the overall development of British
unconventional warfare capabilities leading up to the establishment of the SOE
34Foot 19
35Ibid
36Ibid
37Ibid 30
27
The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors
The SOErsquos most powerful weapon and what set SOE apart from MI6--the British
intelligence service whose primary mission was espionage was SOErsquos ability to organize
armed indigenous populations in occupied territories to resist their occupiers SOE
operatives were simply the facilitators to make the resistance organizations a viable threat
to the occupying forces With the advent of man-portable long-range communications
and aerial delivery systems these populations were now within reach and could be
supported by bringing material by air as well as synchronized into the larger theater
campaign What made this such a worthwhile venture was the large number of potential
recruits thanks to the interests and actions of the German occupiers As F O Miksche
explains ldquoPrecisely as in the First World War the German war aims were too vague
and indefinite to offer any attractions to the people of Europe the Germans in both
world conflicts were psychologically incapable of gaining the sympathy of the masses38
These operations would force the Germans and their allies to expend exponentially
increasing numbers of troops the farther they advanced from Germany As Miksche
notes ldquoHitlerrsquos armoured legions which were able to first surround the enemy forces
were themselves ultimately surrounded by wholly hostile populationsrdquo39 It would be
these populations that the SOE would organize train and advise
38Miksche 45
39Ibid 73
28
Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation
The conceptual applications of unconventional warfare by the British and their
actual operational successes were a testament to the capabilities of the resistance The
British SOE was originally based on small teams that would be able to organize
resistance cells and intelligence networks These SOE operatives would infiltrate into a
denied area by air boat or rat-line--a clandestine means of moving personnel overland
by different techniques They would then linkup with the indigenous resistance force and
develop the force for further operations and intelligence collection The organization for
an average network or circuit included an organizer a courier who was often a woman a
wireless operator and a sabotage instructor Once on the ground the organizers and
wireless operators if not one in the same minimized contact as much as possible because
the wireless ldquowas always the circuitrsquos weakest pointrdquo40
Initially the SOE established small clandestine cellular networks in German-
occupied territory called ldquoreseauxrdquo41 In such an environment the first step in establishing
a network was for a single agent to parachute in to pave the way for the network leader
who would follow a number of days later The initial agent was responsible for
establishing or making contact with intelligence and support networks The network
leader would then parachute in and continue to expand the network He would receive
further augmentation over time depending on his requests The network leader could also
40Foot 106
41Sir Robin Brook ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed (Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992) 69
29
request low-density specialties if necessary This was the case when Francis Suttill head
of the Prosper network in Paris requested an operator skilled at identifying and
establishing air landing zones Three months after the establishment of the Prosper
network Henri Dericourt a former French pilot arrived and was able to organize landing
areas that would receive over sixty-seven agents42
The SOE was also capable of supporting and organizing larger resistance
organizations especially in countries such as Yugoslavia where the resistance had
liberated areas in which the resistance armies could grow relatively unhindered by Axis
counterinsurgency operations This was also possible in France but security concerns
lengthened the time for these networks to grow into substantial numbers The French
Jockey network led by Francis Cammaerts developed into a large network carefully over
time Cammaerts accomplished this by establishing a true self-healing cellular network of
independent but linked groups that kept the network safe even if one of the independent
cells was disrupted This network grew to an amazing army of 10000 resistance
members that encompassed areas from Lyons to the Mediterranean coast to the Italian
and Swiss Frontiers43 In support of Normandy SOE and the US OSS formed the
Jedburghs which operated ldquounder secrecy but more exposed and apt to be in uniform
[which] was more appropriate for close cooperation with invading Allied troopsrdquo44
42ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtmInternet accessed on 2 December 2005
43Ibid
44Brook 69
30
Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History
The SOE traces its lineage directly to the British Secret Intelligence Service
better known as MI6 After MI6rsquos embarrassing loss of its intelligence networks in most
of occupied Europe to German penetration it would take Daltonrsquos SOE to reestablish
intelligence and operational networks that would support Allied operations throughout
the war A short time before the German invasion and occupation of France the chiefs of
staff of the British War Cabinet identified one British strategic objective as ldquothe creation
of widespread revolt in Germanyrsquos conquered territoriesrdquo45 To this end they realized
that an organization would have to be established to meet this goal Lord Neville
Chamberlain whom had resigned as the British Prime Minister after mishandling Hitler
at Munich was still a powerful influence as a member of the War Cabinet and signed the
founding charter of SOE on 19 July 1940 This charter established by name the SOE and
its role ldquoto co-ordinate [sic] all action by way of subversion and sabotage against the
enemy overseasrdquo46
The SOErsquos original capabilities came from the MI6 Section D EH and MI R
Section D which stood for destruction had been MI6rsquos sabotage section47 The Electra
House or EH as it was known was the site of Sir Campbell Stuartrsquos Department a
subsection of the Foreign Office of MI648 MI R stood for Military Intelligence
45Foot 18
46Ibid 20-21
47Ibid 22
48Ibid 253
31
Research49 Originally SOE was subdivided into three special operations branches SO1
SO2 and SO3 SO1 was the propaganda section but in August 1941 it was taken away
from SOE after numerous arguments and turned into its own department the Political
Warfare Executive SO2 was the active operations department while SO3 was for
planning50 There were also compartmentalized sections for each occupied country and a
liaison relationship existed with the governments in exile or representatives of
independent resistance organizations
The rivalry between the MI6 and SOE would continue throughout the war for one
simple reason as Roy Godson explains
There are invariably tensions between the [clandestine collectors and covert action officers] Clandestine collectors frequently work with sources who have political goals the same kinds of people who would also be targeted by covert action officers Covert action officersrsquo connections meanwhile are almost by definition good for the collector51
Nigel Morris describes MI6rsquos reservations about the SOE ldquo[The] Head of SIS [Secret
Intelligence Service] Sir Stewart Menzies stated repeatedly that SOE were lsquoamateur
dangerous and bogusrsquo and took it upon himself to bring massive internal pressure to bear
on the fledgling organizationrdquo52 The other ldquosecret rivalsrdquo as Foot calls them included not
only the propaganda branches but with the Admiralty over SOE maritime operations the
49Ibid 254
50Ibid 22
51Roy Godson Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence (New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004) 34-35
52Niger Morris ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940shy1946rdquo BBC History available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwo soe_printhtml Internet accessed on 1 December 2005
32
Air Ministry over air clearance and with the Royal Air Force over who was more
effective53 Morris also noted that ldquoBomber Command also despised SOE and resented
having to loan aircraft for lsquounethicalrsquo clandestine missions They wanted to win the war
by bombing Germany to its kneesrdquo54
Some of the more famous and unclassified operations that the SOE conducted
include the sabotage of the Pessac power station in France the assassination of Reinhard
Heydrich in Czechoslovakia the destruction of the Gorgopotamos rail bridge in Greece
and the destruction of the German heavy-water plant in Norway The destruction of the
Pessac power plant disrupted German U-boat operations at the port in Bordeaux The
assassination of Heydrich was carried out to counter his new posting and strong arm
counterinsurgent tactics which included round-up executions The Gorgopotamos rail
bridge linked a secondary supply route for the German effort in North Africa Finally
destruction of the heavy-water plant and associated barges crippled the Germanrsquos atomic
weapons program in 194355 The most notable resistance operations took place in support
of the D-Day landings by disrupting German reserves logistics and by providing
intelligence and guides to advancing Allied forces As Foot highlights ldquoAll told about
10000 tons of warlike stores were put into France by SOE 4000 of them before and
6000 after the landing in Normandy arms for about half a million men and a fair amount
of explosivesrdquo56
53Foot 26-27
54Morris
55Ibid
56Foot 222-3 33
The British employed about 5000 SOE operators during the war the largest
contingent going to France and Yugoslavia followed by Greece Italy Belgium Poland
Albania Abyssinia Burma Malaya Scandinavia Switzerland Hungary Romania Siam
the Dutch East Indies and lesser operations in Turkey and China57 Resistance forces
supported by the SOE while not decisive shaped the battle space by tying up numerous
Axis divisions in each country In 1942 the exiled governments of the Czechs Dutch
French Norwegians and Poles suggested to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff that
there should be a single headquarters to direct irregular operations in occupied Europe
As Foot notes ldquo[they] were each astonished to receive his reply that such a body had
already existed for almost two years [which] lsquoleft the Allied commanders breathless
SOE was so secret that its name and existence had never been disclosed to themrdquo58 The
most extreme example of these combined operations was in Poland at the maximum
reach of SOErsquos air branch Polish resistance received 485 successful drops during the
war three hundred SOE operatives and twenty-eight couriers all but five which were
Polish and 600 tons of war material59
In January of 1944 SOE and the US OSS which was modeled after the SOE in
1942 merged headquarters for the invasion called the Special Forces Headquarters In
1946 the SOE rivalry with MI6 ended with many of the SOE networks to include its
world wide communications being shutdown or transferred to MI6 under Menzies Thus
ended the SOE
57Ibid 62 172-242
58Ibid 152
59Ibid 191
34
Special Operations Executive Summary
While some would argue that SOErsquos contributions were negligible in the overall
scheme of the war they are best summed up in a letter from General Dwight D
Eisenhower to Gubbins on 31 May 1945
In no previous war and in no other theatre during this war have resistance forces been so closely harnessed to the main military effort While no final assessment of the operational value of resistance action has yet been completed I consider that the disruption of enemy rail communications the harassing of German road moves and the continual and increasing strain placed on the German war economy and internal security services throughout occupied Europe by the organized forces of resistance played a very considerable part in our complete and final victory60
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
SOE operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements It was
not covert per say since it was generally known that the Allies were conducting these
operations The SOE operations were shaping operational versus decisive supporting the
Allied efforts before and after D-Day Lastly the operational approach was for the most
part combat support with each element conducting combat advising However as the
networks grew and cadres were trained by the SOE operators as in the case of the Jockey
network the individual cells conducted operations coordinated by the Special Forces
Headquarters but not directly supervised by the SOE operatives thus the approach was
more direct than combat support
60ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo
35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare
Introduction
With Americarsquos sudden entrance into World War II the US scrambled to gain a
war footing and mobilize for war One of its weakest areas was the lack of capabilities to
gather strategic intelligence This weakness was highlighted by the failures of any
coordinated intelligence effort to provide early warning of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor in December 1941 The US looked to the British for help with establishing an
intelligence capability Roy Godson points out that for ldquoall intents and purposes US
security [was] being run for [the US] at the Presidentrsquos request by the Britishrdquo61 The
British agent of influence was William Stephenson of the British Security Coordination
who had the ear to the President in much the same way the British had influenced US
commitment in World War I Stephenson would help the legendary William ldquoWild Billrdquo
Donovan organize the first American centralized intelligence organization initially called
the Coordinator of Information (COI) on 11 July 1941 which in 1942 became the
OSS62
The COI organization had three sub-branches all focused on intelligence
gathering The Radio News Branch the Research and Analysis Branch and the Visual
Present Branch Eighty to ninety percent of the intelligence gathered by the Research and
Analysis Branch came from open sources such as its Division of Special Information
Library of Congress63 When COI was transformed into the OSS organization in 1942
61Godson 23
62Ibid
63Brook 89
36
the organizational changes were significant First the organizationrsquos main operational
elements were split into two deputy directorates the Deputy Director of Strategic
Services Operations and Deputy Director of Intelligence Services The Strategic Services
Operations were further sub-divided into six subordinate elements Special Operations
Morale Operations Maritime Units Special Projects Field Experimental Unit and
Operational Group Command The Intelligence Services was sub-divided into five units
Secret Intelligence X-2 or Counterintelligence Research and Analysis Foreign
Nationalities and Censorship and Documents
As Lawrence McDonald noted ldquoGeneral Donovan believed that the principal
contribution of OSS would be strategic intelligence which is the basis for the formation
of national policyrdquo64 It would reason then that the primary effort for collection and
analysis would fall upon the offices of the Director of Intelligence however McDonald
explains that ldquoSome of the most valuable information contributed by the OSS was
the tactical or field intelligence often provided by the Special Operations Branch (SO)
teams working behind enemy lines with resistance groupsrdquo65
Before the COI initially lacked any organization or doctrine for conducting
clandestine and covert operations it would learn from and copy a great deal of the
infrastructure already established by the British SOE and MI6 This relationship benefited
both countries For the US the benefits included intelligence training and the vast
experience base that the British had in place with MI6 and then with the SOE For the
British the US brought money and resources that the British were able to benefit from
64McDonald 93
65Ibid
37
due to its close relationship The British at first were protective of their operations and
agents in occupied Europe fearful that the Americarsquos inexperience could harm their
current operations Over time these relationships strengthened although there were still
some problems depending on political constraints or desires that one country had over the
other
Special Operation Branch
Lawrence McDonald provides an excellent description of the Special Operation
(SO) Branch ldquoThe foremost concern of SO teams and missions was liaison with the
resistance providing weapons and supplies to the indigenous underground forces
training them and planning and coordinating their sabotage with Allied operationsrdquo66
The SO was also responsible for some collateral activities including gathering
operational and strategic targeting information and for recovering downed Allied
aircrews67 SO took place in Europe and Asia with operational patterns and methods for
supporting resistance movements much like the SOE As Michael Warner highlights
ldquoThis emphasis on guerrilla warfare and sabotage fit with William Donovanrsquos vision of
an offensive in depth in which saboteurs guerrillas commandos and agents behind
enemy lines would support the armyrsquos advancerdquo68
66Ibid
67Ibid
68Michael Warner The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000) available from httpwwwciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet accessed on 4 December 2005
38
It was this common ground between the British SOE and US SO that allowed the
first bonds to be strengthened The Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff decided
that the SOE and SO would operate together an idea from which were born the
Jedburghs
The Jedburghs
The Jedburghs dropped into Belgium Holland and France on or after the
Normandy invasion to support the Allied efforts as they moved inland The Jedburghs or
Jeds were specially-trained three-man teams composed of different nationalities to assist
local resistance forces during the final weeks of German occupation Of the three men on
team one was an enlisted radio operator with the other two being officers One of the
officers was native to the country the team deployed to while the other officer was either
British SOE or American OSS The Jeds primary task was to disrupt ldquoGerman
reinforcements to the Normandy beachhead or the Allied landings in southern
Francerdquo69 They also provided valuable tactical intelligence and were able to provide
guides and security for advancing Allied units The efforts of the Jedburghs and their
resistance counterparts may have kept eight German divisions from reaching the
beachheads70
The after-action review of the Jeds highlight the growing pains in the evolution of
the integration of SO and SOE supported resistance groups within the overall
conventional campaign plan A common problem was the need to be infiltrated into the
69Lt Col Will Irvin (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 (New York NY PublicAffairs 2005) 236
70Ibid
39
operational area weeks or months early to capitalize on the full potential of resistance
groups Infiltrating on or after D-Day did not allow the Jeds enough time to train their
counterparts or develop intelligence networks Because of this they were not able operate
at their optimum capability The flow of information was lacking and timeliness of
reports affected ground operations Senior conventional commanders were unaware of
the capabilities of the Jedburghs and their resistance groups for providing accurate
intelligence guides and interpreters These operations generated so much information
that ldquothe SFHQ [Special Forces Headquarters] message centers were receiving so much
traffic that it became impossible to analyze act upon and disseminate informationrdquo71
Despite these difficulties the Jedburgh concept was as Lewis point out ldquoahead of its
time One of the more important successes for the Jedburgh operations was the
psychological impact the teams had on the citizens of occupied France [as] harbinger
of liberation and a call to actionrdquo72 With the end of the European theater the OSS was
redeployed to the Pacific and continued their exploits
Detachment 101
The most famous OSS detachment of the Burma campaign was Detachment 101
or DET 101 The Burma campaign centered around lines of communications such as the
Ledo-Burma Road which had to be secured in order to allow the Allies to reestablish
contact with the Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek The mission was to gain
control of the Ledo-Burma Road from Japanrsquos 15th Army and was as noted by Warner
71Lewis 62
72Ibid 65-66
40
ldquothe closest to realizing General Donovanrsquos original vision of lsquostrategicrsquo support to
regular combat operationsrdquo73
Donovan had been trying to establish an OSS presence in the China-Burma-India
theater and proposed a plan for using agents to sabotage Japanese rear areas Donovan
took advantage of General Stillwellrsquos lack of ldquonordquo as an opportunity to get operations
going before Stilwell could stop the mission The mission was given to a Captain who
had served under Stillwell After standing up DET 101 rushing through training of
which little was applicable to the Far East DET 101 arrived in theater only to find
Stillwell waffling on DET 101rsquos employment Stilwell did not have the resources to drive
the Japanese from the area around the north Burmese city of Myitkyina which was
hampering air operations and the completion of an alternate route Stilwell gave DET 101
the mission
After some difficulty getting into the area of operation DET 101 infiltrated and
began to transition from sabotage to guerrilla warfare but more importantly were able to
develop an extensive intelligence network that provided Stillwell with valuable
intelligence74 With less the 120 Americans at any one time DET 101 had recruited over
11000 native Kachins75 By the end of DET 101rsquos mission they rescued over 400
downed pilots and provided eighty percent of 10th Air Forcersquos targets76 In addition
73Warner
74David W Hogan Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II (Washington DC Department of the Army 1992) 99-106
75Warner
76Hogan 111
41
DET 101 had successfully developed an indigenous force that fixed two Japanese
divisions during the final Allied offensive in Burma77
The Operational Groups
Operational Groups (OGs) were developed to conduct behind-the-lines
commando operations and were composed of US Army soldiers General Donovanrsquos
concept for the OGs was based on his ldquobelief that the rich ethnic makeup of our country
would provide second generation American soldiers with language facility who could
be parachuted into enemy occupied territory to harass the enemy and encourage local
resistance organizationsrdquo78 They were designated to fight in uniform and had no
connection to the OSS thus protecting them from being shot as spies if captured79
The OGs were organized fifteen man detachments with two officers and thirteen
noncommissioned officers They were all trained in physical conditioning land
navigation night operations explosive training weapons light infantry tactics and hand
to hand fighting Two member of the OG received additional training one as a radio
operator and the other as a medic Depending on their likely area of operation the OGs
received additional training such as ski training special parachute training or maritime
training80
77John Prados Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf (Chicago IL Elephant Paperbacks 1996) 16
78Art Frizzell ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg overviewhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
79Warner
80Frizzell
42
The first operational OGs were infiltrated from Algiers into Italy to work with the
local resistance and harass the German 90th Panzer Division Other OGs were parachuted
into Italy to help recover US prisoners as well as a blind drop into Italy to give the Italian
command the details of the Armistice and cease actions against the Allies As the
Germans withdrew some resistance elements were liberated and were ready to return to
the North to harass the withdrawing Germans By mid-1945 when the Germans
surrendered there were ten OG missions totaling 120 men in northern Italy81 For up to
two weeks the OGs and their resistance elements governed their areas until Allied
military governments arrived During this time OGs had to maintain order and receive
drops of humanitarian items for the local populous82
In 1943 another OG was stood up at the request of the Greek government in exile
to assist Greek guerrillas hiding in the mountains The mission for this OG which arrived
in Greece in April of 1944 was to delay and harass 80000 German troops withdrawing
from Greece The British also participated and provided the Raider Support Regiment83
The OG operations in Yugoslavia were one part of the British-led Allied efforts in
Yugoslavia The purpose for the Allied effort in Yugoslavia was conducting as many
offensive operations as possible against German troop concentrations The operational
base for this operation was a British garrison which included British Commandos a
Raider Support Regiment some naval and air support and a number of Yugoslavian
81Albert Materazzi ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwww ossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
82Ibid
83ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
43
resistance units all together totaling several thousand84 There are three categories of OG
missions in Yugoslavia mainland operations reconnaissance patrols and island
operations The mainland operations for OSS were unsuccessful and stopped after only
two failed attempts85
The island operations began in January of 1944 and were aimed at conducting
raids to inflict casualties on German garrisons and outposts These OG raiding parties
were at time large and combined efforts with other British and partisan units For
example the first mission against Hvar Island had 33 OGs 150 British Commandos and
75 partisans while others such a linear ambush on Korcula Island in April of 1944 had a
party of only seven OGs and a few partisans The size of this operation grew especially
when aimed at relieving pressure on Tito during German offensives One extremely large
operation included the British Commandos a British Infantry battalion the Raider
Support Regiment and an undisclosed number of partisans with OG units A and B
serving as flank security and liaison between the partisans and the British artillery The
mission succeeded in drawing the Germans from along the coastal regions as well as
another German division from the interior and is regarded as successful in relieving some
pressure from Titorsquos partisans86
84ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavian html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
85ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo available from httpwwwossog orgyugo-mainlandhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
86ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
44
The French OG group was originally composed of 200 volunteers The French
OGs were ready to deploy at the completion of their training in the fall of 1943 but they
were delayed because military leaders in conventional commands were reluctant to
deploy OGs for lack of understanding of their employment In an attempt to remedy this
misunderstanding the French OGs participated in field training exercises with airborne
units from Fort Bragg North Carolina in December of 1943 The French OGs were still
in limbo conducting environmental training in Virginia and Colorado when they
received orders attaching the groups to the Seventh Army in Algiers They arrived in
Algiers and were forced to wait once again until finally being assigned missions in
support of the Normandy invasion
There were two operational groups deployed into France the French OG and the
Norwegian OG The French OG flew from England nearly a month after the invasion
parachuted into France and operated north of Lyons The Norwegian OG flew from
Algiers and operated in southern France south of Lyons The total number of teams
deployed to France was twenty all with the missions to cut enemy lines of
communications attack vital enemy installations organize train and boost the morale
and efforts of local resistance elements and to gather intelligence for the advancing
Allied Armies
The Norwegian OG which was stationed and trained at Camp Hale Colorado
was made up of 100 officers and noncommissioned officers In December 1943 the
Norwegian OG was moved to England and was assigned to the OSS SO Headquarters
subordinate to the Scandinavian Section As was previously stated the Norwegian OGs
deployed to France and upon the liberation of France the Norwegian OG was reduced in
45
size As the Norwegian OG was being drawn down Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces
became concerned with 150000 German troops that were in northern Norway that
intelligence estimated would be moved south to defend Germany SHAEF wanted to
ensure that the Germans were forced to take sea routes so the OGrsquos mission would be to
disrupt the rail lines The commanding officer for the operation split the OG into two
units identified as NORSO I and NORSO II for Norwegian Special Operations87
NORSO I consisted of three officers and thirty enlisted soldiers and was the main
effort NORSO II consisted of one officer and eighteen enlisted soldiers and was to serve
as the reserve prepared to reinforce NORSO I if necessary or to complete a separate
mission The NORSO I target was identified as the Nordland Railway more specifically
the Grana Bridge plus lesser targets along the line The operation was plagued with
numerous difficulties from weather to deadly plane crashes however it did go on in less
than optimal conditions They successfully destroyed two and a half kilometers of track
disrupting the troop movements A month later they were told the Germans had
capitulated and NORSO I and II then participated in the disarmament procedures and
performed policing duties in the areas of German surrender88
Finally the Chinese OG mission was much different than what the OG missions
in Europe The mission entailed ldquothe formation training equipping and attachment of
87ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
88ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
46
American personnel for twenty Chinese Commandosrdquo89 This mission was generated
from an agreement that Chinese divisions led by veteran Americans would be more
effective than a regular Chinese division The agreement was made in January of 1945
and the nucleus of the OG personnel for this mission was the recently redeployed French
OG elements of the Norwegian OG and a third OG that had conducted amphibious
operations in Burma Additional officers and enlisted men were brought from
replacement centers in the US raising the total number of US personnel to 160 officers
and 230 enlisted all under the command of a lieutenant colonel Each Commando unit
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 8th 9th and 10th consisted of 154 Chinese and 19 Americans The
units were task organized into a headquarters three rifle sections a 60 millimeter mortar
section a light machine gun section and a demolition section In the initial plans it was
thought that there would be 3000 Chinese troops but due to physical readiness only a
quarter were available In the eighth week training cycle the Commandos showed major
improvements and for the Chinese being selected and becoming a Commando were
achievements to be proud of Seven of the Commando units conducted operations with
hostilities ending before the others could be stood up and trained90
Office of Strategic Services Summary
The OSS had gained valuable experience first from the British who taught
Donovanrsquos agency everything they had learned conducting clandestine and covert
operations in the first years of the war The partnership between SOE and OSS helped the
89John Hamblet ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo available from httpwwwossog orgchinahtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
90Ibid
47
OSS get through its fits and starts Donovanrsquos vision made the OSS an organization that
at the end of the war was an organization with an extremely effective strategic
intelligence and unconventional warfare capability Donovan had opened the Pandorarsquos
Box of irregular warfare for which the politicians and conventional military leaders were
not ready and contributed to the OSS being disbanded at the end of the war However
with the post-World War II environment looming it would not take very long before it
became evident that these types intelligence and unconventional warfare operations
would become the norm of covert activity during the Cold War
Demobilization of the different resistance groups throughout the world ran the
gambit of no demobilization and just turning the elements over to the reinstalled
government to collecting up arms and returning the resistance members back to their preshy
war lives Will Irwin provides a glimpse into the minds of the exile governments with
respect to resistance elements and their post-war status in this case the French ldquoSpecial
Force Headquarters received [a] Jedburgh message requesting a parachute drop of
arms and ammunition to the Paris resistance But de Gaullersquos London-based
commander of the [French Forces of the Interior] postponed the operation in hopes
that the arrival of Allied forces in the city would preclude the need to further arm the
Paris resistance because it was predominantly communistrdquo91 The fear at the time was
that the communist resistance would take over Paris with French commanders ldquoanxious
to install a provisional noncommunist government in the city as soon as it fellrdquo92 This is
91Irwin 145
92Ibid
48
exactly what they did after Paris was liberated ldquo[wasting] no time in occupying
government buildings and establishing political controlrdquo93
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
OSS operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements Like
the SOE the OSS operations were shaping operational supporting the advance of Allied
troops Finally the operational approach was combat with each element conducting
combat advising or in the case of the operational groups conducting their own operations
As with the SOE some resistance groups they received direct support in the way of
weapons and supplies but no combat advisory support The operational groups were
somewhat different in their application more commando-like and probably low-
visibility versus clandestine in nature Depending on their mission profile they may have
conducted unilateral direct action missions special reconnaissance or working with
resistance elements conducted unconventional warfare
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations
Introduction
At the conclusion of the war President Trumann who disliked Donovan and his
agency gave the order to disband OSS immediately The SO capability was dropped the
Research and Analysis Section went to the State Department and everything else went to
the War Department Because the Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy had saved SI
and X-2 this would constitute a peacetime intelligence service McCloy then named this
93Ibid 145-6
49
organization the Strategic Services Unit which was then confirmed by directive from the
Secretary of War Michael Warner explains that the Executive Order also directed the
Secretary of War to ldquoliquidaterdquo OSS activities that were not in line with national
interests Seeing that most of the work that Donovan had accomplished with respect to
developing an irregular warfare capability all of it was counter to the conventional-
minded military leaders who were happy to get rid of this threatening concept for war
that they considered ungentlemanly anyway
Within two years a new organization no longer in the War Department was
established by the President and Congress initially called the Central Intelligence Group
The CIG became the CIA with signing of the National Security Act of 194794 The 1947
Act gave the CIA the responsibility for coordinating all intelligence activities within the
US government including gathering analyzing and distributing intelligence products A
follow-on act in 1947 provided the CIA with ldquoconfidential fiscal and administrative
proceduresrdquo which was appropriate for the kind of work the CIA was conducting95
With the end of World War II the Cold War was beginning to emerge and
communist ideology was beginning to spread In this conflict in which both sides had
nuclear weapons they could threaten each other but could not resort to war as had been
known in the past Now the US and the USSR jockeyed for position and began to give
covert support to governments and indigenous resistance forces to influence countries
and regions in order to expand control One of the tools that had been looked upon by the
94Warner
95Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd) 2
50
regular military with such disdain supporting resistance forces would now play a major
role in the Cold War
Common sense told many politicians within the Truman administration that
covert actions should be the responsibility of the military Their argument seemed easy-shy
during World War II the military was responsible for covert and clandestine operations
such as deception psychological operations subversion sabotage ldquobehind-the-linesrdquo
unconventional warfare to support indigenous elements raids and even assassinations
However as was mentioned earlier the uniformed leaders within the Pentagon did not
want to get stuck with a controversial and unorthodox method of warfare and
enthusiastically gave it up to the CIA ldquo[JCS] apparently was fearful of what it perceived
to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in subrosa [sic] cloak-andshy
dagger activitiesrdquo96 Although the CIA retained control of the peace time operations they
had wanted not only the covert paramilitary activities during peacetime as stipulated by
National Security Council 102 in June 1948 but in wartime as well97
However in the early 1950s the DOD would once again develop a capability to
support indigenous resistance forces with the stipulation that it would only do this in
wartime leaving the peacetime operations to the CIA The Special Forces were born and
prepared for operations behind enemy lines in Germany should the Cold War turn hot It
is also notable that the term chosen by the CIA for support to insurgency was
96Bank 161
97Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Psychological and Unconventional Warfare 1941-1952 (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2002) 69
51
ldquoparamilitary operationsrdquo which John Prados defines as ldquoThe type of clandestine
operations that creates forces resembling regular military unitsrdquo98
The Three Disciplines
The ldquothree disciplinesrdquo within the CIA are intelligence collection and analysis
counterintelligence or counterespionage and covert action99 As William Daugherty
points out the first two operations collection and counterintelligence are meant to be
clandestine in other words ldquothe actual operations their participants and their results are
intended to remain hidden from viewrdquo100
Intelligence collection is the collection of raw intelligence data from any number
of sources including human and technical means This is the classic form of intelligence
work and the primary role of the CIA and the one that it is most famous for This raw
intelligence is then analyzed and is provided to the policy makers as ldquofinishedrdquo
intelligence upon which they can make decisions regarding threats or intentions of other
nations or non-nation actors
Counterintelligence or counterespionage functions to deny an advantage to its
adversaries This can be done in numerous ways such as turning foreign intelligence
agents to provide information on their fellow spies or ensuring adequate protections are
in place to protect sensitive information Both collection and counterintelligence share
many of the same techniques and requirements
98Prados 17
99Daugherty 9
100Ibid 12
52
The final discipline and the one that applies to paramilitary operations is covert
action Daugherty defined covert action simply as ldquoinfluencerdquo--influencing foreign
audience in the case of paramilitary operations by using covert military operations
preferably through a third-party actor101 Covert action results are visible but the
perpetrator cannot be identified Daugherty further highlights the application of this to the
US government by quoting the 1981 Executive Order 12333 ldquospecial activities [covert
operations] conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are
planned and executed so that the role of the United States government is not apparent or
acknowledged publiclyrdquo102 Thus with respect to paramilitary operations the indigenous
or surrogate force provides the ldquofrontrdquo to the operations and keeps the action or influence
from being directly attributable to the US As Daugherty explains ldquothe covert aspect is
that the lsquosponsorrsquo (ie the government behind the program) remains hidden leaving the
observers to believe that the actors are indigenous citizens acting entirely of their own
volition in events that are local in originrdquo103
Interestingly the first official definition of covert action was articulated by
President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in Executive Order (EO) 12333 The definition reads
[S]pecial activities conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly and functions in support of such activities but which are not intended to influence United States political processes public opinion policies or media and do not include diplomatic
101Ibid
102Daugherty 13
103Ibid
53
activities or the collection or production of intelligence and related support functions104
Other key points of Executive Order 12333 are that intelligence activities are not
primarily covert action covert actions must not be conducted within the US and ldquoit
explicitly and unambiguously assigns all peacetime covert action missions to the
CIArdquo105
The executive order has worked well enough that it was amended into a federal
statute in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991 The federal statute defines covert
action as
[A]n activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political economic or military conditions abroad where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly but does not include (1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence (2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities106
One of the confusing points of Executive Order 12333 is the use of the words special
activities versus covert action At first glance they seem similar but they do not have as
much in common as it would seem Daugherty explain that included in the special
activities rubric are
[P]rograms such as training of foreign military security and intelligence services [which] have been especially important to presidents not because the programs seek change in a hostile regime but because they work to preserve a friendly regime107
104Ibid
105Ibid 13-14
106Ibid 14
107Ibid 15
54
So now that these two definitions show that covert action and special activities are related
but not the same thing Unlike covert actions special activities ldquoare not intended to
produce any overt event to influence an audience but instead are operations that are
meant to remain clandestine in all aspectsrdquo108 With respect to this thesis paramilitary
operations are thus covert unconventional warfare operations to influence such as
overthrowing a government and special activities are clandestine foreign internal defense
operations which could be used when a foreign government did not want overt US
support and training
Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability
Since the end of World War II the US military has not had the lead role in any
covert action programs aimed at supporting indigenous forces The military supported
CIA covert operations at times such as providing training teams for operations
According to Bob Woodward Special Forces soldiers accompanied CIA paramilitary
operatives into Northern Iraq before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom which provides
an example of once easily definable peace or war lines of separation becoming harder to
discern109
William Daugherty provides a list of reasons why DOD has not been able to
conduct peacetime covert operations
DOD does not possess nor has it ever possessed the statutory authority to conduct classic covert action except
108Ibid 16
109Bob Woodward Plan of Attack (New York NY Simon and Schuster 2004) 208-209
55
During a war formally declared by Congress
During any period covered by a report to Congress under the War Powers Act
When DOD is specifically tasked by the President because it is determined that the military is more likely to achieve particular objectives
CIA already has existing infrastructure to conduct covert actions such as its fleet of civilian-registered aircraft and maritime vessels
CIA already has recruited agents third-country nationals to carry out the required operational and support activities in foreign countries
DOD covert action forces would either have to give up protection of their Geneva Convention rights or any covert actions that were discovered they could be considered an act of war
CIA already has a presence in many of the 190 sovereign nations in the world which give them long operational reach support and clandestine infrastructure
CIA has almost instantaneous reaction or response time in any crisis situation to include the capability to travel in alias under civilian cover and with non-US travel documents
CIA has a core of career covert action specialists in each of the four broad categories of covert action ndash propaganda political action paramilitary and information warfare110
The obvious advantages currently go to the CIA however these same capabilities could
be developed within DOD with help of the CIA who is reluctant to share any of their
ldquotoysrdquo as Daugherty alludes to throughout his book
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations
CIA covert operations were widespread throughout the Cold War While some of
these programs remain classified there are a few notable paramilitary actions and special
110Daugherty 62-69
56
activities that provide an interesting comparison to Special Forces operations during this
same period As William Daugherty points out
From Trumanrsquos time through the Nixon years covert action programs served only two purposes they were intended either to stop the spread of Communism to countries that were not under the Soviet thumb by strengthening or supporting whatever regimes were in power or to weaken Communist or Communist-supported government by lsquoeroding their internal supportrsquo111
From the Nixon years on covert actions began to be used against non-Communist
targets
Eastern Europe 1949-1956
With the Soviet occupation of the Eastern European satellite nations the US and
Britain began a subversion campaign almost immediately The Ukraine was the first
country the MI6 and CIA actively sought to raise anti-Soviet resistance capabilities In
1945 MI6 was able to reestablish contact with the leader of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists When the State Department agreed to proceed with support the
mission was given to the foreign intelligence bureau and the Office of Policy
Coordination responsible for paramilitary operations112
The Office of Policy Coordination started numerous training camps in West
Germany to train Eastern eacutemigreacutes from the Soviet Union and Ukraine The first group of
agents was infiltrated into western Ukraine by parachute in 1949 The long-term plan was
to infiltrate 2000 agents throughout the Eastern Bloc countries The mission of the agents
111Ibid 124
112Peter Harclerode Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden (London Cassell and Company 2001) 5-7
57
was to report Soviet preparations for offensive operations against the west and support
resistance organizations to disrupt any Soviet operations against the west113
The CIA also infiltrated agents into Lithuania which in 1944 had 30000
resistance members of the group the ldquoForest Brotherhoodrdquo Latvia was thought to have
14000 well-armed fighters114 However none of these operations was able to keep an
agent alive for any period of time after his infiltration most succumbing to immediate
arrest or death For the CIA and Secret Intelligence Service no goals had been reached
despite a large expenditure of money and resources Daugherty offers these observations
on why these operations failed
[U]nrealistic goal of lsquorolling backrsquo Communist domination organizers mistakenly assumed that eacutemigreacute groups could be made secure from Soviet penetrations [and] Soviet military and intelligence units conducted formidable counter-insurgency operations in the target countries relentlessly hunting down the eacutemigreacute guerilla force Last these operations were betrayed by [a] KGB double agent115
Albania offered another opportunity for use of unconventional warfare this time
aimed at the regime of Enver Hoxha ldquothe dictator and secretary-general of the Albanian
Communist Partyrdquo116 The goal of this combined British and US effort as Peter
Harclerode explains ldquowas to wrest the country from the Sovietrsquosand assist the
establishment of a democratic pro-Western governmentrdquo117 The concept for this
113Ibid
114Ibid 21
115Daugherty 127
116Harclerode 35
117Ibid
58
operation was to instigate an uprising to overthrow Enver Hoxha with operations taking
place from 1949 to 1954 For this operation 250 Albanians were recruited by the exiled
Albanian National Council which would comprise Company 4000 and led by an
American officer Three platoons were raised and trained in varying levels of guerrilla
warfare and then parachuted into Albania Although able to infiltrate members of the
company most were quickly captured or killed by the effective internal security
apparatus of the Hoxha regime By August of 1954 it was decided to disband Company
4000 and dismantle the training school located in Western Germany The remaining
recruits were demobilized and then were dispersed throughout the US Britain and other
locations A CIA officer is quoted by Peter Harclerode providing significant insight into
the lessons learned from this operation
The Albanian operation was the first and only attempt by Washington to unseat a Communist regime within the Soviet orbit by paramilitary means It taught a clear lesson to the war planners Even a weak regime could not be overthrown by covert paramilitary means alone118
The activities against the Soviet Union and its satellite states in the early years of
the Cold War provide and interesting beginning to post-World War II unconventional
warfare All of these efforts were plainly unconventional warfare aimed at using
resistance organizations to disrupt of Soviet expansion and if war broke out to act as
shaping operations forcing the commitment of Soviet combat power to rear area security
These operations were all indirect using training areas in third-party countries and then
infiltrating these elements into the target country unilaterally with the radio being the
only connection to their CIA handlers
118Ibid 71
59
Korea
Korea provides a great example of two simultaneous unconventional warfare
efforts one by the CIA with a cover name of Joint Advisory Commission Korea and
other efforts by of conventional military officers with the most prominent effort being
that assigned to the Guerrilla Division of the 8240th Army Unit The conventional
military cadres had little or no formal unconventional warfare training or experiences119
These efforts were not coordinated until a year into the conflict when the Far East
Command which in 1953 would be redesignated as United Nations Partisan Infantry
Korea established the Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea to
synchronize these unconventional warfare efforts120 Before the establishment of the
Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea a single officer Colonel John
McGee who had worked with the Filipino guerrillas in World War II was assigned to the
Far East Command G-3 Operations as the sole member of the Miscellaneous Division
His initial task was ldquoto prepare a staff study on the possibilities of conducting guerrilla
operations against the North Koreans using some of the refugees from the northrdquo121
The CIArsquos mission was to ldquostep up pressure on the Chinese Communists by
supporting guerrilla movements on the mainland of China especially along lines of
communicationsrdquo122 The CIA successfully established a network of covert intelligence
119Ibid 179 and Col Ben S Malcom (ret) and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea (Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996) xi
120Malcom and Martz 14-15 27
121Ibid 15
122Major General (ret) John K Singlaub Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century (New York NY Summit Books 1991) 181
60
bases along the North Korean coast from which Korean agents could be dispatched
However the operation was never able to establish any significant resistance networks
The 8420th was able to establish a substantial resistance effort primarily due to
location and a large refugee population of willing supporters but the overall effects are
arguable since the resistance was rewarded for their actions based on their own reports
truthful or not Part of the operational constraints was that no American could operate in
North Korea due to the political risks which made it difficult for the American cadres to
exploit the efforts of the resistance123 In some cases there were documented successes
by American advisors such as then 1st Lieutenant Ben Malcolm that had special
permission or ldquoclandestinelyrdquo went ashore not having the consent of their higher
headquarters
The motivation for much of the resistance effort was the belief that the United
Nations would conduct a counteroffensive against the Chinese As Ben Malcolm
explains the assumptions being that when the offensive happened ldquothe partisans would
prove invaluable at their harassment and interdiction of enemy forces It was classic
unconventional warfare strategy using the partisans as an auxiliary to conventional
forces on the attack helping to shape the battlefieldrdquo124 An example of the effectiveness
of some of these units such as the 8086th Army unit which in less than a year claimed to
ldquohave conducted 710 operations killed 9095 and wounded 4802 and captured 385rdquo
123Ibid 183
124Malcom and Martz 17 61
and in the process destroyed thirty-seven road bridges twelve railway bridges and
twelve tunnels and seven hundred weaponsrdquo125
Demobilization of the partisan forces was called Operation Quicksilver and called
for the ldquointegration of the partisans into [Republic of Korea] unitsrdquo126 As Ben Malcolm
explains ldquoQuicksilver called for those partisans with at least two years of service to be
honorably discharged and given their uniforms mess gear four blankets two hundred
pounds of rice and transportation to their city of choice in South Koreardquo127 Those opting
to enlist for two years got the same incentives plus an extra one hundred pounds of rice
For their transfer from American to South Korean control the US only required them to
ldquoturn in their weapon and for some unexplained reason their canteen cuprdquo128 However
less than half of the 22000 partisans disappeared in a year and as Ben Malcolm
surmises some went south and some ostensibly went north with some elements still
requesting support by radio ldquowell after the armistice was signedrdquo129
The unconventional warfare operation in Korea can be summarized as covert
shaping operations aimed at disrupting the Chinese forces in support of the larger United
Nations mission thus these operations were shaping operations With regards to the
operational approach of these operations they are mostly direct support with only a few
examples of sanctioned combat advisory support
125Ibid 26
126Ibid 190
127Ibid 190-1
128Ibid 191
129Ibid
62
Tibet
In the case of Tibet five years elapsed between the beginning of the Chinese
invasion and the Tibetan uprising in 1956 President Eisenhower authorized covert
support to the unorganized ldquoTibetan internal resistance movementrdquo130 The intended
effect was ldquoto confront thwart or harassrdquo the Chinese Communist government The
program began in 1956 and ended by President Richard Nixon thirteen years later in
1969131 While eventually unsuccessful certain aspects of this covert action are
intriguing Beginning in December of 1956 an operation codenamed ST CIRCUS
commenced with a small groups of handpicked Tibetan resistance members were
exfiltrated out of the country by the CIA and taken to different training bases in the
Pacific and later America132 As Peter Harclerode explains
At a training camp established by the CIA the six Tibetans underwent four and a half months of extensive instruction in guerrilla warfare In addition to small arms they trained in the use of light support weapons including the 57mm recoilless rifle and 60mm mortar and well schooled in tactics fieldcraft map-reading navigation demolitions mine-laying sabotage booby traps and first aid They also received instruction on in intelligence-gathering skills and in [long range encrypted communications]133
These teams also learned to parachute and establish drop zones for receiving personnel
and equipment134 These teams were then parachuted back into Tibet to organize
130Daugherty 144
131Ibid
132Harclerode 348-9
133Ibid 350
134Ibid
63
resistance forces Although the program generated mixed results the concept was a
proven means of conducting indirect support
The program was shut down in 1974 after relations with China had warmed
during the Nixon administrations The Tibetans were left feeling ldquodiscarded by the
United States which no longer needed them now that they had served their purposerdquo135
There was no demobilization instead the US ldquoterminatedrdquo support not only paramilitary
assistance but political recognitions and support in the United Nations and the financial
support to the exiled government136
This indirect unconventional warfare program was also covert and unique in that
the majority of the training took place in the continental US at different locations but all
under extreme secrecy This program was a strategic shaping operation aimed at
indirectly influencing China
Cuba
Almost immediately after President Kennedy entered the White House in January
of 1961 he authorized the CIA to begin to conduct covert operations against the Castro
Government One element of this extensive covert action program that included
psychological operations and sabotage was a paramilitary effort This paramilitary
infamously known as the ldquoBay of Pigsrdquo would end in tragedy and failure The plan was
135Ibid 393
136Ibid
64
to conduct an invasion of Cuba using exiled Cuban resistance members and overthrow
Castro The training for this operation took place in a Guatemala a third-party country137
Regardless of the failures of this operation it does provide an interesting
unconventional warfare case study for analysis With respect to the operational signature
it may have begun as a covert operation but the supporting efforts such as ldquoair strikes
from US Navy and Marine squadrons on nearby aircraft carriersrdquo would have definitely
changed the signature and thus the deniability of US involvement As to whether this was
a decisive or shaping operation its failure masks the true intent--a decisive overthrow of
Castro This operation began as an indirect unconventional warfare effort with training
conducted in a third party country and arms and equipment provided by the CIA Had
the air support been provided as promised then this operation would have taken on a
direct or combat role depending on the level of naval air involvement While this was a
definite covert action gone bad operation it still provides a great lesson in the strengths
and weaknesses of unconventional warfare
Laos
The operation in Laos in the 1950rsquos and 1960rsquos is often incorrectly identified as
unconventional warfare when in fact it is more correctly a covert action in this case a
special activity to increase the Laotian government ability of defeating internal and
external threats138 Richard L Holm a former CIA officer describes the situation in
Laos ldquoLao communist forces known as the Pathet Lao (PL) were challenging the
137Daugherty 155
138Major Dean S Newman ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
65
governmentrsquos Royal Lao Army (FAR) throughout the country Although badly organized
and poorly trained and equipped the PL was bolstered by support from North Vietnam
whose units were call the VC (Vietnamese Communists)rdquo139 As Richard Holm explains
ldquoThe CIArsquos paramilitary efforts in Laos were divided roughly along geographic linesrdquo
north central and southern Laos and involved working with different tribal and ethnic
groupsrdquo140 Although the Pathet Lao threat to the Laotian government for the US
government greater concern was the North Vietnamese use of eastern Laos to support its
efforts in South Vietnam
The initial programs were under the auspices of the US Agency for International
Development and its advisors before becoming a covert action to ldquobolsterrdquo the Laotian
government141 Special Forces were also involved in White Star initially under the
command of Lieutenant Colonel ldquoBullrdquo Simons legendary for leading Son Tay Raid--the
prisoner-of-war rescue mission--some ten years later142 In the original program twelve
teams were under the auspices of the Agency for International Development Project
Evaluation Office later renamed the Military Assistance Advisory Group The effort was
initially called Operation Ambidextrous later to become Operation White Star143
139Richard L Holms ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 available from httpwwwodcigov csistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet accessed on 18 June 2005
140Ibid
141Ibid
142Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo available from httpwwwspecialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet accessed on 22 January 2006
143Ibid
66
The program ended in earnest in July of 1962 the Geneva negotiations on Laos
were signed stipulating that all foreign military personnel had to withdraw from Laos
The White Star advisors left the country as required while less than fifty of an estimated
10000 North Vietnamese soldiers passed through international observer checkpoints144
The Laotians were not demobilized but continued to receive covert support from the
CIA However with the end of the Vietnam war all US efforts in Laos ended and the
tribes who continued to fight were decimated many becoming refugees in Thailand
The operations in Laos were covert foreign internal defense shaping operations in
the larger context of the growing problems in South Vietnam However the White Star
operation was never able to successfully deny eastern Laos to the North Vietnamese It is
arguable whether the operational approach was combat or direct support but based on the
fact that Special Forcesrsquo suffered one killed-in-action and four missing in action during
this operation there were obviously combat advisor taking place145
Vietnam
In early 1961 President Kennedy tasked the CIA with initiating covert operations
against North Vietnam wanting to ldquoturn the heat up on Hanoi and do to them what they
were doing to the US ally in South Vietnamrdquo146 The real problem was that putting agents
and developing resistance forces in the North was that it was a denied area which some
144Charles M Simpson Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years (Novato CA Presidio Press 1983) 90
145Specialoperationcom
146Richard H Shultz Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi (New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999) xiii
67
considered to be a tougher environment than the Soviet Union China East Germany and
North Korea147 Over the next two years the President grew increasingly impatient with
CIA operations in North Vietnam and in 1963 turned over a majority of the programs to
military control in what was called ldquoOperation Switchbackrdquo This was a world-wide
replacement of CIA leadership of clandestine paramilitary operationsrdquo148
While there were many CIA programs developed a majority were turned over to
the military to run early in 1963 However one program that was an interagency effort to
defeat the insurgency called the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development
Support (CORDS) was established in 1967 Later to the ldquoRevolutionaryrdquo would be
changed to ldquoRuralrdquo but the programs goals did not--pacification of South Vietnamese
rural areas149 The CIArsquos role in CORDS was what initially was known as the
Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program later to be renamed Phoenix150 The
aim of this portion of Phoenix was to identify and neutralize the Viet Cong insurgent
underground organizational infrastructure in the rural towns and villages The Phoenix
programs emphasized four areas to attack the Viet Cong infrastructure (VCI) district
intelligence centers to identify VCI neutralize verified members of the VCI by either
capturing killing or conversion established rules for prosecuting VCI and placed the
147Ibid
148Simpson 138
149Major Ross Coffey ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
150Dale Andrade and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
68
emphasis of these efforts on local militias and police instead of the military In a four
year period beginning in 1968 Phoenix neutralized 81740 Viet Cong
The operations in North Vietnam proved that it is difficult to create a resistance or
insurgency from scratch especially in a denied area The programs were covert indirect
unconventional warfare operations with the goal of shaping the strategic environment
The Phoenix program was a low-visibility counterinsurgency program thus a foreign
internal defense It also was a shaping operation for the larger objective of CORDS
pacification plan and its operational approach was to empower local militias and police
so it was direct support
Nicaragua
The covert actions Finding for Nicaragua were signed by President Carter within
two weeks of the Sandinistas National Liberation Front rise to power in 1979151
However Carterrsquos Finding entailed nonlethal covert action only It was not until
December of 1981 that President Reagan would signed a Finding authorizing ldquocovert
funding and assistance for the anti-Sandinista rebelsrdquo better known as the Contras152
The initial funds and authorities provided funds to Argentina ldquoto organize and train a
five-hundred-man anti-Sandinistas unit for deployment in the Central American region
but with a proviso that the funds could not be utilized to overthrow the Nicaraguan
governmentrdquo153
151Daugherty 190
152Ibid 203
153Ibid 204
69
By the end of the program a second Finding authorized operations in Nicaragua
ldquocosting close to $100 million per year and the five-hundred-member Argentine unit was
transformed into a multi-thousand Nicaraguan rebel forcerdquo154 As Lynn Horton
highlights
[I]t is possible that 30000 or more Nicaraguans fought at some point with antigovernment forces making the contras [sic] one of the largest armed mobilizations of peasants in contemporary Latin American history In addition thousands more peasants participated in civilian collaborator networks that provided contra [sic] troops with food shelter and vital military information155
Despite the controversy in the US with the program the war ended in 1990 after the
Sandinistas National Liberation Front was defeated in the election that year The forces
were not demobilized by the US with some reverting to insurgency as necessary over the
next decade This controversial but successful program was a covert unconventional
warfare operation that ended up being a decisive operation through indirect support from
the different agencies in the US government
Afghanistan and the Soviets
The US had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of a Soviet-supported third-
world country Vietnam When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the Carter administration
saw an opportunity to return the favor As President Carterrsquos National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested ldquoWe now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its
Vietnamrdquo156 The Carter administration had already started covert operations months
154Ibid
155Lynn Horton Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 (Athens GA Ohio University 1998) xii
156Daugherty 189
70
before the Soviet invasion including a propaganda campaign indirect financial aid to
insurgents direct financial assistance to Afghan eacutemigreacute groups lethal and nonlethal aid
and offered training and support157 Afghanistan would prove to be the largest CIA
operation in history and one of the most successful As Anthony Joes highlights CIArsquos
success ldquoIt was perhaps the most satisfying experience the Americans ever had with
guerrilla warfarerdquo158
The Afghan mujahideen were much weaker militarily and politically than the
Vietnamese had been and they were facing a superpower that was not squeamish about
using brutal tactics against insurgents The other element that the mujahideen lacked was
unity of command and effort which was a huge obstacle but was partly due to the tribal
and warlord nature of the society
The amount of money the US expended was initially relatively small around 80
million dollars a year but this jumped to 470 million dollars a year in 1986 and to 700
million dollars by 1988159 The only major obstacle that the CIA faced was in its dealing
with the Pakistani intelligence service that favored four Afghan groups and ensured that
the majority of weapons over 70 percent were given to these groups However the
Pakistani Intelligence Service took an active roll in training and supporting the Afghans
to include numerous schools which trained over 80000 mujahideen by 1988160 The
157Ibid 188-189
158Anthony James Joes America and Guerrilla Warfare (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000) 279
159Ibid 310
160Harclerode 536
71
British were also very active throughout Afghanistan supporting the CIA efforts161 The
CIA also took advantage of the situation and was able to capture or recover some of the
Sovietrsquos premiere equipment including a Mi-24 attack helicopter162 The real coup was
the introduction of the Stinger missile which accounted for nearly 500 aircraft in 1987163
By 1988 the situation was untenable for the Soviets they had lost domestic support for
the war The Afghan mujahideen had succeeded in defeating the Soviets Once again the
US did not demobilize these elements although some effort was made to track the usage
of Stingers and to have unused Stingers turned back in
The efforts in Afghanistan provide a good example of coalition unconventional
warfare with numerous nations providing some type of support to the covert efforts
Afghanistan was an operational and strategic decisive operation removing the Soviets
from Afghanistan but also from the world scene leading up to the fall of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War The operational approach varied depending on the
nation some providing indirect monetary and political recognition of the effort to other
efforts that were direct support in nature providing training and sanctuary outside the
borders of Afghanistan Finally there were some combat advisory efforts by the US
Pakistan India China and other countries from the Middle East in the form of
intelligence agents and paramilitary advisors164
161Ibid 540
162Ibid 543-544
163Joes 311
164Harclerode 512
72
Central Intelligence Agency Summary
After a rough Post-World War II period the CIA proved to be a world class
intelligence organization From the first British visionaries who saw the potential of
unconventional warfare it has been proven time and again to be a viable method of
warfare It has been used to defeat the US and the Soviets and it continues to haunt the
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan Based on recent experience as a nation covert
paramilitary operations are now proven foreign policy tools
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Doctrinal Developments
In 1951 Lieutenant Colonels Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann were given the
charter to develop a DOD unconventional warfare capability by then chief of the Army
Psychological Warfare Brigadier General Robert McClure Both men understood
unconventional warfare due to their first-hand experiences in World War II working with
indigenous resistance organizations Lieutenant Colonel Bank was an OSS veteran
having supported resistance groups in France as a member of a Jedburgh team and later
in China165 Lieutenant Colonel Volkmann had organized the US Forces in the
Philippines--Northern Luzon ldquoone of the largest and best organized guerrilla operations
on Luzonrdquo166 He had also written the first Army Field Manual (FM) on guerrilla warfare
FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla [sic] Warfare that was published just
165Bank 13
166Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet accessed on 3 May 2006
73
as he and Bank began to develop the concepts for unconventional warfare and Special
Forces167
The combined experiences of Bank and Volckmann ran the gambit of
unconventional warfare one conducted clandestine operations in an environment where
he could speak the language and blend in while the other in a environment that he could
not blend into one trained in clandestine unconventional warfare the other with no
formal unconventional warfare training one in a combination urban and rural
environment the other in a rural jungle one as a member of a highly trained team the
other as part of an ad hoc organization and one conducted unconventional warfare
operation of generally short duration the other conducted long-term unconventional
warfare and finally one had experience using unconventional warfare to support
conventional operations while the other had experience conducting unconventional
warfare operations as the only effort until late in the war
However even with all of their experiences their most difficult task was to battle
conventional mindsets such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff that disliked the idea of
unconventional warfare As Bank explained ldquoIt apparently was fearful of what it
perceived to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in sub-rosa cloak-
and-dagger activities in the event of disclosurerdquo168 This contrasted to the new CIA that
wanted sole responsibility for unconventional warfare not just covert paramilitary
activities during peacetime as stipulated by National Security Council 102 in June
167Lieutenant Colonel Russell Volckmann US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare (Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951)
168Bank 161
74
1948169 Bank and Volckmann set out to establish an organization that could conduct UW
based on an operational element later the Operational Detachment Alpha which they
envisioned as ldquoa cadre that would mushroom into a huge guerrilla force actually a
phantom armyrdquo170
The same confusion that surrounds unconventional warfare today also haunted
Bank and Volkmann as Bank explains
Neither of us liked the fact that so much terminology was being bandied around concerning behind-the-lines operations The terms unconventional warfare clandestine operations unorthodox warfare and special operations were being used interchangeably171
When they refined the operational term they called it Special Forces Operations which
had a sole purpose of supporting resistance movements The operational concept
envisioned by Bank and Volckmann was
to infiltrate by air sea or land deep into enemy-controlled territory and to stay organize equip train control and direct the indigenous potential in the conduct of Special Forces Operations Special Forces Operations were defined as the organization of resistance movements and operation of their component networks conduct of guerrilla warfare field intelligence gathering espionage sabotage subversion and escape and evasion activitiesrdquo172
The focus on organizing resistance movements in this concept was Bank and Volkmannrsquos
attempt to separate Ranger-style missions from what they envisioned as Special Forces
missions
169Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins (Washington DC National Defense University 1982) 69
170Bank 166
171Ibid
172Ibid 179
75
This was important too since Bank and Volkmann had been under pressure from
the beginning to combine these two forces together This combined unit was supposed to
conduct all aspects of behind the line operations from unilateral raids and sabotage to
support to guerrilla movements Bank explains the differences ldquoThe Rangers were
strictly short-term shallow-penetration units whereas [Office of Strategic Services] had
long term much more complex strategic capabilitiesrdquo173 The Special Forces Operations
concept was meant to separate the purposes of Special Forces and Rangers Over the next
fifty years Special Forces added many of the missions which Bank and Volkmann fought
so hard to keep from the Special Forces charter However in times of budget cuts and
force reductions Special Forces had to adapt to the times to maintain the force and
relevance Vietnam and the Cold War would provide the impetus for developing new
capabilities that were not in the original charter developed by Bank and Volckmann
In the 1960rsquos as the Cold War began to be fought by communist-backed
revolutionists insurgents and guerrillas President Kennedy called upon the men who
trained to fight as guerrillas to now fight against these threats in an effort to contain
communist expansion in other words ldquofight fire with firerdquo President Kennedy set out in
earnest in the early 1960rsquos through a series of letters to the Army to get the military as a
whole to change the conventionally-bound military mindset to adapt to this new type of
political-insurgent warfare Thomas K Adams explains the reaction of the conventional
military to the request of the President
President Kennedy called for ldquoa wholly new kind of strategy a wholly different kind of force and therefore a new and different kind of military trainingrdquo What he got was business as usual but with [unconventional warfare] trimmings
173Ibid 144
76
regardless of the wrapper the contents of the package remained conventional warfare Describing the Armyrsquos reaction to Kennedyrsquos program Maxwell Taylor remembered feeling that ldquoall this dust coming out of the White House really isnrsquot necessaryrdquo It was ldquosomething we have to satisfy but not much heart went into [the] workrdquo He sounded a long standing theme when he added that he felt the Special Forces were not doing anything that ldquoany well-trained unitrsquo couldnrsquot dordquo174
Thomas Adams also noted as a result of these letters what occurred was ldquoan attempt to
fit the existing military structure to the counterinsurgency problemrdquo175 There were
numerous studies and conferences on topics such as special warfare counterinsurgency
and guerrilla operations during this time However the outcome of all these studies was a
limited counterinsurgency capability based on conventional light infantry tactics with no
change in understanding of the complex cultural and political elements of the problem176
In the 1960s despite the problems with the conventional military establishment
accepting its role in counterinsurgency Special Forces proved highly successful in
fighting insurgencies and guerrillas throughout the world In Vietnam for example
Special Forces programs such as the Civilian Irregular Defense Group and Mobile Strike
Forces were highly successful operations using indigenous or surrogate forces the
Montagnards and Chinese Nungs respectively Doctrine began to catch up to the
counterinsurgency actions with subtle shifts in 1965 to include discussions of Special
Forcesrsquo roles in counterinsurgency in FM 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques
and FM 31-21 Special Forces Operations
174Thomas K Adams US Special Operations in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare (Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998) 70
175Ibid 73 176Ibid
77
With the addition of counterinsurgency in these manuals the confusion between
counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare began with a mixing of terms One such
example is found in the 1961 FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces
Operations in which a new command structure is introduced called the Joint
Unconventional Warfare Task Force This task force would provide command and
control to operational elements within the theater of operations177 This headquarters
concept was put into practice in 1964 when the Military Assistance Command Vietnam-
Studies and Observation Group was created as a joint unconventional warfare task force
As Thomas K Adams explains that this Studies and Observation group was ldquoresponsible
for special operations in Burma Cambodia Laos North and South Vietnam and border
areas of Chinardquo178 In hindsight including unconventional warfare in the task force name
was probably a misnomer since all of the operations encompassed in the region were
either overt or covert foreign internal defense and special reconnaissance and to a lesser
extent direct action The only unconventional warfare operations during this period were
the failed attempts to establish and support a resistance force in North Vietnam179
In the 1963 version of FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces a new
counterinsurgency unit called the Special Action Force appears180 The Special Action
Force ldquois a specially-trained area-oriented partially language-qualified ready force
177Department of the Army FM 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1961) 14
178Adams 118 179Shultz 3
180Department of the Army FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1963) 1
78
available to the commander of a unified command for the support of cold limited and
general war operationsrdquo181 This Force is build specifically around a Special Forces group
with the mission of ldquoproviding training operational advise and assistance to indigenous
forcesrdquo182 The manual suggested that the Special Action Force be task organized with
ldquocivil affairs psychological warfare engineers medical intelligence military police and
Army Security Agency detachmentrdquo183 Another interesting feature of this organization
as explained in the FM 31-22 is the conventional army brigade-sized backup force As
the manual describes ldquoBrigade-size backup forces are area oriented and designed to back
up a particular [Special Action Force] These forces are committed to an operational area
when the capabilities of the [Special Action Force] have been exceededrdquo184
Charles Simpson III explains the real world application of the Special Action
Forces concept
Four Special Action Forces came into being one on Okinawa built around the 1st Special Forces Group for the Far East (SAFASIA) one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America and tow at Fort Bragg organized around the new 3rd and 6th Groups for Africa and the Middle East In Europe the 10th Special Forces Grouphellipassumed functions much like those of the large [Special Action Forces] but without their resources185
181Ibid 16
182Ibid 20
183Ibid 16
184Ibid 42
185Simpson 69
79
By 1972 the Special Action Force concept had ended with no group ever fully deployed
instead being piecemealed throughout the theaters186 One of the major shortcomings of
the program was the fact that a Special Action Force had to be requested by the
ambassador which was unlikely to be supported by the rest of the country team which
had civilian capabilities that were similar to the SAF This interagency rivalry
significantly reduced the effectiveness and usefulness of the Special Action Force
concept and led to the concepts demise187
A doctrinal shift occurred with the 1969 publication of FM 31-21 Special Forces
Operations which addressed new missions of support for stability operations and
unilateral operations--the precursors of foreign internal defense direct action personnel
recovery strategic or special reconnaissance This manual is still focused heavily on
unconventional warfare with this topic covered in the first nine of eleven chapters
however one chapter devoted to support for stability operations and one to covering the
employment of Special Forces ldquoin additional military operationsrdquo Stability operations in
this manual are defined as
internal defense and internal development operations and assistance provided by the armed forces to maintain restore or establish a climate of order within which responsible government can function effectively and without which progress cannot be achieved188
It also clarifies that unconventional warfare doctrine is ldquonot entirely applicable to overt
stability operationsrdquo and stipulates that
186Adams 100 187Simpson 68-9
188FM 31-21 10-1
80
Many [unconventional warfare] tactics and techniques such as those employed to gain the support of the local population to establish intelligence nets and to conduct tactical operations such as raids and ambushes may be adapted to stability operations189
The manual also describes ldquoadditional military operationsrdquo as ldquounilateral deep
penetrations to conduct reconnaissance surveillance and target acquisition attack
critical strategic targets recovery of friendly personnel in remote or hostile areas and
training of US andor allied personnel in Special Forces operational tactics and
techniquesrdquo190 Also of note is the definition of direct action mission ldquoOvert or
clandestine operations in hostile or denied areas which are conducted by US
[unconventional warfare] forces rather than by US conventional forces or through US
direction of indigenous forcesrdquo191 This is interesting because it denotes difference
between the unilateral direct operations and the use of indigenous forces
Unconventional warfare would continue to be the primary operation and bases for
all the Special Forces field manuals throughout the 1970s Foreign internal defense
emerged in the mid-1970s in Special Forces doctrinal manuals The definition of foreign
internal defense in the 1978 Special Text 31-201 Special Forces Operations is directly
out of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Publication 1 and is defined as the ldquoparticipation by
civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by
another government to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and
189Ibid
190Ibid 11-1
191Ibid Glossary 1
81
insurgencyrdquo192 It also describes a Special Action Force-type organization based once
again on a Special Forces group augmented with ldquohighly specialized skills need to assist
a host country to develop internal defenserdquo193 This special text notes that a augmented
Special Forces group can train advise and assist the host countryrsquos regular or
paramilitary forces as well as compliment or expand the US security assistance efforts of
the country team for short periods of time194
Between late 1970 and 1990 the changes in Special Forces doctrine were not
captured in writing The 1990 publication of FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces
Operations superseded the last FM 31-20 from 1977195 This new manual detailed eight
Special Forces missions and activities unconventional warfare foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism collateral activities and other
special operations activities196 While the definition of unconventional warfare is exactly
the same as today it is still obvious that unconventional warfare is directly related to
ldquoinsurgency or other armed resistance movementsrdquo197 Of note this manual begins to
address the change in insurgent environments from rural based to urban based In
192US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations (Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978) A-1
193Ibid
194Ibid
195Department of the Army FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 20 April 1990) Cover
196Ibid Index
197Ibid 3-2
82
response the manual explains that ldquoglobal urbanization dictates a shift in emphasis from
rural [guerrilla warfare] to all aspects of clandestine resistancerdquo198 This is the first time
in the doctrinal manuals that clandestine operations are discussed with regards to the
urbanization of insurgency
The Gulf War revitalized Special Forces having conducted numerous operations
employing special reconnaissance and coalition support Like many missions coalition
support was a necessary mission with only a couple of options for manning this force-shy
Special Forces was the most qualified In a misguided attempt to keep unconventional
warfare current to the times coalition support operations were added to unconventional
warfare This idea was further explained in the June 2001 FM 3-0520 Special Forces
Operations ldquoThe conventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and
led in varying degrees by SF and US allies represents the newest evolution of UW-related
surrogate forcesrdquo199 The argument could be made that elements of the 10th Special
Forces Group conducted unconventional warfare using Kuwaiti military units that had
fled the Iraqi invasion Although the actual operational impact was small due to the small
size of the ldquofreerdquo Kuwaiti force the civil-political impact of having a Kuwaiti unit help in
liberating its country was huge200 The use of surrogates or ldquosomeone who takes the
place of or acts for anotherrdquo was first addressed in the 1990 version of FM 31-20 in
198Ibid
199FM 3-0520 2-6
200Susan L Marquis Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces (Washington DC Brookings Institute Press 1997) 234
83
response to coalition warfare201 The 2001 FM 3-0520 tries to explain this concept to
prove coalition support is a valid unconventional warfare operation ldquoFrom a US point of
view these coalition forces and resources are surrogates and act as substitutes for US
troops and resources reducing US commitmentldquo202 The manual also highlights that
ldquoconventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and led in varying
degrees by SF and US allies represent the newest evolution in UW-related surrogate
forcesrdquo203
After the Gulf War as evidenced by the emphasis that coalition support was ldquothe
newest evolutionrdquo unconventional warfare was standing on shaky ground within the
Special Forces community204 The general feeling within Special Forces was
unconventional warfare no longer was a viable mission in the post-Cold War
environment and should be relegated to a lesser role or dropped altogether John Collins
highlights this feeling when he wrote ldquoCongress therefore might weigh the advisability
of discarding [unconventional warfare] as a statutory rolerdquo in favor of foreign internal
defense205
In October of 1994 Colonel Mark Boyatt then the Commander of 3rd Special
Forces Group wrote an article in Special Warfare recommending unconventional warfare
201FM 3-0520 2-5
202Ibid 2-6
203Ibid
204Ibid
205John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
84
and the other Special Forces core missions should fall under the umbrella of a new term
unconventional operations206 This concept did not catch on and in fact received some
critical reviews from his contemporaries One of his critics was Colonel Glenn Harned
who explains that a single catch-all mission like unconventional operations would not
allow a Special Forces element to stay proficient in all the skills sets necessary required
to be ldquounconventional operations qualifiedrdquo207
In October of 1998 the Commanding General of the United States Army Special
Forces Command (Airborne) then Major General William Boykin asked for input on the
relevance of unconventional warfare208 Although the results of this question are difficult
to determine from a doctrinal standpoint one of the replies highlights the
misunderstanding abound in the branch In answering this question Commander of the
3rd Special Forces Colonel Gary Jones and Major Chris Tone coauthored an article that
attempted to explain that although unconventional warfare had replaced the term guerrilla
warfare guerrilla warfare was still the primary mission of Special Forces They further
highlighted that ldquoIn the minds of most [sic] [Special Forces] soldiers [unconventional
warfare] doctrine has been oversimplified [Unconventional warfare] is just [foreign
internal defense] in a denied areardquo209 The authors go on to further misrelate insurgency
206Colonel Mark D Boyatt ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
207Colonel Glenn M Harned ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
208Kershner 84
209Colonel Gary M Jones and Major Chris Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 6
85
and guerrilla warfare when they state ldquoThe contrast between the operational
environments of the two unconventional warfare missions are striking [Guerrilla
Warfare] is conducted when our nation is at war insurgency is conducted when our
nation is at peacerdquo210 This article received a lot of positive feedback throughout the
community One supporter said that it ldquomarked the beginning of a [unconventional
Warfare] renaissance in the [Special Forces] communityrdquo211 However retired Colonel J
H Crerer wrote a critical review highlighting the mistakes of the authors for example
ldquoFirst [unconventional warfare] includes [guerrilla warfare] so it would be illogical to
use the terms interchangeably Second and more important [unconventional warfare]
also includes subversion and sabotagerdquo212
In 2000 the United States Army Special Forces Command again broached the
question of unconventional warfarersquos relevance and attempted to refocus the branch on
unconventional warfare to ensure Special Forces relevancy as the Army was concurrently
conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates The end result was a Special Forces
Commandrsquos concept called Unconventional Warfare 2020 Colonel Michael Kershner
summarized the findings of Unconventional Warfare 2020 in a series of articles in the
spring of 2001 that highlighted the confusion with unconventional warfare and redefined
unconventional warfare Colonel Kershnerrsquos explained that the new definition of
unconventional warfare would encompass all of the other core Special Forces missions
210Ibid
211Major Mike Skinner ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare as an SF Missionrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16
212Colonel J H Crerar ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37
86
to include foreign internal defense213 This subtle change to the definition was widely
accepted by the Special Forces branch which had been struggling for years to find a
more definitive description of unconventional warfare that would ensure a ldquonicherdquo
mission that no other military unit could conduct As Colonel Kershner explained in an
interview with Dennis Steele for an article in ARMY Magazine ldquoWe donrsquot want to be
stuck in the past or step into the future in a way that is irrelevant We must focus on
relevant and unique capabilities and [unconventional warfare] is our most unique
capabilityrdquo214
One other major point of departure from the legacy unconventional warfare
doctrine discussed by Kershner was the removal of the seven phases of US-sponsored
insurgency from doctrine Kershner stated that this seven-phases construct was ldquooutdated
[and it was] more appropriate to describe [unconventional warfare] in terms of current
US doctrinal phases--engagement crisis response war-fighting and return to
engagementrdquo215 The theory that US sponsors unconventional warfare in seven phases
emerged in the 1965 version of FM 31-20 Special Forces Operations (the 31-20 series
being the predecessor to 3-0520) However even earlier Russell Volkmannrsquos 1951 FM
31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare provided a similar phasing
213Kershner 84
214Dennis Steele ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article on-line] available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet accessed on 14 May 2006
215Ibid 87
construct in which he discussed ldquoseveral operational phasesrdquo including psychological
preparations initial contact infiltration organization build-up and exploitationrdquo216
Although not part of his suggested phases Volkmann discusses demobilization as
a separate chapter217 The unconventional warfare efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq after 11
September would validate the seven-phased construct However in Afghanistan and Iraq
the phases were compressed due to political constraints and then the tempo of operations
The only phase that was not validated during operation in Afghanistan and Iraq was the
seventh phase demobilization While some resistance elements were demobilized and
returned to society a vast majority continued to serve in the postconflict phases The
seven-phase construct had been developed based on the experiences of World War II in
which there was a rapid demobilization of forces at the end of the war The new
experiences with postconflict operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may force a change in
this final phase of unconventional warfare as it transitions to foreign internal defense218
Less than six months after Kershnerrsquos articles were published the events of 11
September transpired By the summer of 2003 unconventional warfare had been
successfully conducted in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and had been used to
support the conventional offensive operations against Saddam Hussein In each of these
efforts unconventional warfare would transition to foreign internal defense of an
intensity and scale that had not been encountered by US forces since Vietnam The events
of 11 September had one more effect the results of the Unconventional Warfare 2020
216FM 31-21 37-38
217Ibid 227-232
218Authorrsquos own experiences from Northern Iraq April 2003
88
studies were lost and not incorporated into the 2003 version of FM 3-05201 Special
Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations The first paragraph in the manual describes
the aspects of unconventional warfare explaining ldquoThe intent of Unites States (US)
[unconventional warfare] operations is to exploit a hostile powerrsquos political military
economic and psychological vulnerability by developing and sustaining resistance forces
to accomplish US strategic objectivesrdquo219 It also began to capture some of the lessons
learned from Operation Enduring Freedom the most important being that unconventional
warfare operations may be supported by conventional operations instead of the more
traditional role unconventional warfare supporting conventional operations As the
manual explains ldquothere are times when introduction of conventional forces does not
take the main effort away from unconventional operations in fact the conventional
forces may support the unconventional forcesrdquo220 The newest FM 3-05201 is currently
in final unreleased draft form and is classified SECRET This will be the first
unconventional warfare manual that has been classified in its entirety In the past a
classified supplemental pamphlet supplemented the unclassified manual such as the 1961
version of FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations with a classified
supplemental FM 31-21A
In mid-January 2004 the ldquoCody Conferencerdquo was held in Cody Wyoming ldquoto
identify concepts that will be necessary for shaping the future of Army Special
219FM 3-05201 1-1
220Ibid 1-3
89
Forcesrdquo221 The twelve members of this conference included a number of senior active
duty and retired Special Forces officers as well as representatives from acclaimed
members of the media academia and private sector222 With the war on terrorism as the
focal point the conference studied the current conflict and worked to define Special
Forces role against this new threat Major General Lambert highlights that ldquoSpecial
Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare which includes counterinsurgency and guerrilla
warfare Special Forces should be chartered to monitor and combat insurgencies even
though other US forces will move on to new prioritiesrdquo223 One of the recommendations
of this panel was the development of a ldquostanding deployable Special Forces
Headquartersrdquo that would be capable of conducting ldquosustained guerrilla warfarerdquo224
These last two points highlight the continued confusion of unconventional warfare
guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency that reaches even the highest levels of Special
Forces
The conference did develop a number of recommendations in addition to the just
mentioned deployable headquarters including the need for a ldquoglobal environment of
seamless information- and intelligence-sharing [improving] coalition allied and
surrogate intelligence and operational capabilitiesrdquo and ldquo[Conducting] area-denial
221Major General Geoffrey C Lambert ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20
222Ibid 27
223Ibid 23
224Ibid
90
area-control and remote-area operations either directly or with partnersrdquo225
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense would obviously play a significant
role in establishing this global capability by empowering the coalition partners to defeat
or disrupt their own internal and external threats as well as remove unfriendly regimes
that could be providing sanctuary for ones enemies as the Taliban did for Al Qarsquoida
Major General Lambert also mentions the importance of Special Forces as a ldquoforce
multiplierrdquo that ldquoconserves conventional military force for the main effortsrdquo226
In 1990 FM 100-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict the first
manual specifically written for low-intensity conflict was published in a joint effort by
the Army and Air Force The writers explain that ldquoThis manual fills a void which has
existed in the Army and Air Force for some time It complements warfighting doctrine by
providing operational guidance for military operations in [low intensity conflict] from
which implementing doctrine can be developedrdquo227 FM 100-20 also described an
organization called the Foreign Internal Defense Augmentation Force which could
augment or support the Security Assistance Organization in ldquosituations that range from
conditions short of open hostility to limited war They may locate strategically and vary
in size and capabilities according to theater requirementsrdquo228 This augmentation force if
225Ibid 22
226Ibid 24
227Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force Field Manual 100shy20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 5 December 1990) 1-1
228Ibid A-7 91
very similar to the previous described Special Action Forces of the late 1960s and early
1970s
The implementing doctrine for FM 100-20 took the form of FM 31-20-3
published four years later and titled Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and
Procedures for Special Forces The manual provided an extensive ldquohow tordquo handbook
for foreign internal defense The concepts of indirect direct and combat support to
foreign internal defense was not portrayed in this manual or its parent manual FM 100shy
20 The 1996 joint foreign internal defense manual JP 3-071 was reverse engineered
from the Special Forces manual However the joint manual was much more detailed and
had more depth
The family of Army manuals FM 100-5 and FM 3-0 Operations manuals have
only provided a basic description of foreign internal defense and to a much lesser extent
unconventional warfare The 1993 version of FM 100-5 combines support to insurgencies
and counterinsurgencies in three paragraphs total229 The 2001 version of FM 3-0
provides a much more in-depth description of foreign internal defense than the previous
FM 100-5230 However support to insurgencies is covered in three sentences in the
ldquostability operationsrdquo chapter explaining in essence that it takes a National Command
Authority (term no longer used) for Army forces to support an insurgency that Army
229Department of the Army FM 100-5 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 13-7 to 13-8
230Department of the Army FM 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 9-8 to 9-9
92
special operations forces are best suited for this supporting role and that conventional
forces can support these operations if necessary231
The manual addresses special operations in a supporting role only ldquo[Special
operations forces] can reinforce augment and complement conventional forces In
war [special operations forces] normally support the theater campaign or major
operations of the [joint force commander]rdquo232 Finally the FM 3-0 describes the
battlefield organization as ldquothe allocation of forces in the [area of operation] by purpose
It consists of three all-encompassing categories of operations decisive shaping and
sustainingrdquo233 Decisive operations ldquoare those that directly accomplish the task assigned
by the higher headquarters Decisive operations conclusively determine the outcome of
major operations battles and engagementsrdquo234 FM 3-0 further defines shaping
operations as ldquo[creating] or [preserving] conditions for success of the decisive
operationsrdquo235
While FM 3-0 does not directly relate these operations to unconventional warfare
or foreign internal defense examples exist that provide ample evidence that these
operations can be decisive and shaping With regards to unconventional warfare
operations supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 were
decisive and resulted in the overthrow of the Taliban while the operations in Northern
231Ibid 9-10
232Ibid 2-8
233Ibid 4-22
234Ibid 4-23
235Ibid
93
Iraq supporting the Kurdish resistance fixed thirteen of twenty Iraqi divisions in the
North shaping the battlefield for the conventional forces invading from the south An
example of a Special Forces foreign internal defense effort that was decisive is the direct
support to the El Salvadoran military to defeat the Farabundo Marti National Liberation
Front (FMLN) and a shaping operation is the success Special Forces had in South
Vietnam developing indigenous counterinsurgency forces in support of the larger
conventional campaign None of these examples have found their way into the joint or
Army doctrine The new FM 3-0 is currently in un-releasable final draft form
Much like the Army operations doctrine the 2001 JP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint
Operations takes only a paragraph to describe unconventional warfare calling it support
to insurgency This paragraph reads
Support to Insurgency An insurgency is an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a legally constituted government through the use of subversion and armed action US forces may provide logistic and training support to an insurgency but are not normally involved in the conduct of combat operations236
The current draft of the new JP 3-0 now called Joint Operations has added one
component to the above definition ldquoThe United States may support an insurgency against
a regime threatening US [sic] interests (eg US [sic] Support [sic] to the Mujahadin [sic]
resistance in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion)rdquo237 While the both publications
capture some elements of US support to insurgency such as training and logistics support
it has obviously not been updated since Operation Iraqi Freedom based on the final
236Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 10 September 2001) V-13
237Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) VII-9
94
statement that US forces ldquonormallyrdquo donrsquot conduct combat operations However the
description differs from the description found in FM 3-0 Operatioins in one respect it
provides a real-world example of unconventional warfare describing US efforts to
support the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets
Another important concept in the soon-to-be published Joint Publication 3-0
provides a new operational ldquophasing modelrdquo shown in figure 1 which has some
applicability to this study238 This model is important to this study because it provides the
first doctrinal recognition that any campaign is going to have multiple phases occurring
simultaneously and that operations do not stop at what has previously called conflict
termination--the end of combat operations For this study it will be important to
determine how the seven phases of US sponsored unconventional warfare fit within this
phasing construct This conceptual models has six phases--one phase covering peacetime
engagement and five the phases of an operation
238Ibid IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfare conceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
95
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfareconcepts approved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model
Phase 0-Shape-(Prevent and Deter) This is the normal peacetime engagement
environment in which the US forces are conducting operations to support the theater
security cooperation plan
96
Phase 1-Deter-(Crisis Defined) This is the first step in resolving conflict by
demonstrating military capabilities and the resolve of the US and it partners in an attempt
to deter an opponent from acting or forcing the US to react
Phase 2-Seize the Initiative-(Assure Friendly Freedom of Action and Access to
Theater Infrastructure) During this phase joint forces are applied to the problem to set
the condition for the dominate phase and may include military action and diplomatic
efforts
Phase 3-Dominate-(Establish Dominate Force Capabilities and Achieve Full
Spectrum Superiority) This is the phase that is focused on ldquobreaking the enemyrsquos will for
organized resistance or in noncombat situations control of the operational environmentrdquo
Phase 4-Stabilize-(Establish Security and restore services) This phase is required
when there is ldquolimitedrdquo or ldquono functioning legitimate civil governing entity present The
joint force may have to perform limited local governancerdquo
Phase 5-Enable Civil Authority-(Enable authorities and Redeploy) During this
phase the US joint forces support the legitimate government and more importantly it
marks the military end state and redeployment239
The new JP 3-0 also highlights that the ldquoStabilizerdquo phase may characterize the
transition from ldquosustained combatrdquo to ldquostability operationsrdquo It also rightly explains
ldquoStability operations are conducted as needed to ensure a smooth transition to the next
phase and relieve sufferingrdquo240 However the model does not provide a description of
how to identify this transition The importance of this graph will become apparent during
239JP 3-0 Joint Operations IV-33 to IV-37
240Ibid IV-36
97
the analysis portion of this thesis especially with respect to phasing unconventional
warfare and the transitions between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
Other documents are available to provide some insight into the future of Special
Forces doctrine with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense in
lieu of these soon-to-be-released doctrinal manuals These are the 2004 National Military
Strategy the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and finally the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement These three documents may hold the keys to
future unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
The 2004 National Military Strategy identifies six capabilities required for the US
to win decisively ldquoconventional warfighting unconventional warfare homeland
security stability and postconflict operations countering terrorism and security
cooperation activities [italics-authorsrsquo emphasis]rdquo241 This statement has enormous
implications for Special Forces in the future since three of these capabilities are Special
Forces-specific and are tied directly to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review is another important document with
respect to the future of unconventional warfare One of the Quadrennial Defense Review
decisions is to ldquoFurther increase [Special Operations Forces] capability and capacity to
conduct low-visibility persistent presence missions and a global unconventional warfare
241Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategy of the Unites States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow (Washington DC Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2004) 13
98
campaignrdquo The key point here is the idea of a ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo
and determining exactly what that means242
The term ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo is used in the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement but is not defined The posture statement does
define unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo243 These definitions are not supported by current joint definitions of
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense adding to the overall confusion The
posture statement identifies five missions that will ldquohelp establish the conditions to
counter and defeat terrorismrdquo unconventional warfare psychological operations foreign
internal defense special reconnaissance and civil affairs244 It is interesting that direct
action and counterterrorism are not mentioned in this list of operations since these two
operations are the major capability that the Special Operations Command provides to the
overall military effort245 Not addressing these terms may be an indicator that current
studies on unconventional warfare are pointing to direct action and counterterrorism
operations against non-state actors and their infrastructure as being unconventional
242Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
243United States Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 5 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8-06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
244Quadrennial Defense Review Report 1 see glossary for definitions
245FM 3-0520 2-1 see glossary for definitions
99
The history of Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine provides a window to the past The history of unconventional warfare doctrine is
plagued with confusion from the beginning From vague definitions to mission creep the
concepts of supporting insurgencies found in the Special Forces unconventional warfare
doctrine has been proven since 11 September The current attempt to change the
unconventional warfare doctrine to align with the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo is
not a new concept either and is the direct result of the vagueness of the unconventional
warfare definitions This idea is reinforced by studying foreign internal defense doctrine
which provides by far the most clear and concise definitions and doctrine
South Vietnam
The confusion over unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense reached
its climax in Vietnam Michael McClintock explains in terms of guerrilla warfare
(unconventional warfare) and counterinsurgency (foreign internal defense) ldquoThe
confusion of guerrilla warfare with counterinsurgency was in evidence from the
inceptions of the American effort to wage counterinsurgency in Vietnam What is
extraordinary is that very little thought appears to have gone into this distinctionrdquo He
suggests that ldquothe [Special Forces] generally went about the task of counterinsurgency as
if engaged in guerrilla operations behind enemy linesrdquo246
Regardless of the confusion the Special Forces programs were easily among the
most productive in the entire war effort The main Special Forces efforts were with the
246Michael McClintock Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 (wwwstatecraftorg 2002) available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet accessed on 21 February 2006
100
Civilian Irregular Defense Group program the Mobile Guerrilla Forces and Mike
Forces Another effort that is sometimes confused with unconventional warfare was the
cross-border operations conducted by the Studies and Observation Group which utilized
surrogates such as Chinese Nungs and turned former Viet Cong guerrillas in what
would more precisely be called special reconnaissance The nearly decade-long Civilian
Irregular Defense Group as Charles Simpson highlights ldquoinvolved thousands of
Vietnamese civilians millions of dollars and approximately 100 camps spread out from
the Demilitarized Zone to the Gulf of Siamrdquo247 This program unlike the Strategic
Hamlet Programs did not relocate villages but trained them to defend their own villages
which is captured by its original name--Village Defense Program248 While originally
defensive in nature it later evolved into an active defense sending out combat patrols as
early warning as well as interdicting Viet Cong or North Vietnamese units when these
villages were located in strategic locations such as astride to enemy lines of
communications
Another successful program that grew out of the necessity to have a quick
reaction force to react to Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacks on the Civilian
Irregular Defense Group camps was the Mobile Strike Forces better known as ldquoMike
Forcesrdquo The Mike Force was originally established in 1965 and formed from a battalion
of Chinese Nungs which is a tribal group originally from the Chinese and North
Vietnamese border The tenacity of these fighters had endeared them to the French and
247Simpson 95
248Ibid 99
101
were raised into ldquoNung Divisionsrdquo by the French and were settled into enclaves in South
Vietnam249
A similar program to the Mike Force was created called the Mobile Guerrilla
Force ldquoto conduct guerrilla warfare in the vast stretches of enemy-controlled territory
outside areas of operations of CIDG Campsrdquo250 An average Mobile Guerrilla Force was
made up of one Mike Force Company and a reconnaissance platoon As Charles Simpson
notes ldquoThe concept was to infiltrate these company-sized forces usually by foot and to
operate against the enemyrsquos lines of communications usually branches of the Ho Chi
Minh Trailrdquo251
All of these programs were without a doubt foreign internal defense missions
despite their ldquoguerrilla-like naturerdquo These indigenous forces were developed into
specialized but irregular units and capabilities all in an effort to defeat the Viet Cong
insurgents and disrupt North Vietnamese main force resupply and movements This was a
shaping effort for the overall US effort and was also overt It consisted of combat
support with Special Forces not only advising but actually commanding and leading
these units
North Vietnam
The Military Assistance Command Vietnam Special Observations Group was
established in 1963 with the task to pick up where the CIA had failed to conduct
249Ibid 120
250Ibid 124
251Ibid 125
102
operations in Laos and North Vietnamrdquo252 The Studies and Observation Group had four
principle covert missions under OPLAN 34A to insert and develop agent networks to
establish a fabricated resistance movement and misinformation campaign to conduct
maritime interdiction along the coast of North Vietnam and to conduct cross border
reconnaissance operations in Laos253 While considered the largest covert unconventional
warfare program since World War II the eight-year program from 1964 to 1972 had
mixed results At one end of the spectrum were the five hundred agents that upon
infiltration were neutralized or turned by the North to the successes in 1968 when the
North Vietnamese government began to fear the growing subversion However the US
policy makers feared a destabilized North Vietnamese government and for all intents and
purposes shut the programs in North Vietnam down once the Hanoi had been persuaded
to begin negotiations254 The most interesting aspect of this program was the use of
deception to make the North think a resistance was active The most noteworthy of these
efforts were the kidnapping of North Vietnamese citizens and exposing them to the fake
resistance organization known as the Sacred Sword of the Patriots League then returning
them to report to the information to their government
This was a covert unconventional warfare program and strategic shaping
operation While it was unsuccessful establishing an actual resistance the Sacred Sword
of the Patriots League was an interesting method that qualifies as an example of indirect
252Shultz xiii
253Ibid x-xi
254Ibid 330-331
103
support by using North Vietnamese citizens to unwittingly spread the rumor of the fake
resistance organization
El Salvador
Special Forces operations in El Salvador were a successful example of foreign
internal defense to help the military defeat the FMLN While this was an exceptional
example of how Special Forces could conduct foreign internal defense in direct support
to the El Salvadoran military it is routinely called an unconventional warfare operation
In fact it is identified this way in the manual that governs Special Forces operations FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations The FM 3-0520 explains
[Special Forces] operations in El Salvador during the 1980s are an example of [unconventional warfare as the decisive operation] In this instance [unconventional warfare] operations are conducted during what would appear to all but the [unconventional warfare] participants to be operations to promote peace never progressing through operations to deter aggression and resolve conflict or actual combat255
US direct support foreign internal defense was provided to El Salvador after a rocky
period of diplomatic engagement in which the US cut off economic and military aid due
to El Salvadorrsquos ruthless counterinsurgency operations against the FMLN which included
extensive human rights violations In early 1981 the FMLN had a nearly ten thousand-
man army poised and ready to overthrow the government until President Carter chose the
lesser of two evils and lifted the economic and military sanctions which turned the tide
255FM 3-0520 2-4
104
and allowed El Salvador to thwart the insurgents When President Reagan came into
office he was much more aggressive in his desire to thwart communist expansion 256
While other economic aid was being provided the US military group was allowed
by Congress to have a total of fifty-five personnel assigned to train equip and advise a
military that initially numbered around 12000 and would grow to nearly forty-two
thousand troops over a four year period257 The Special Forces advisors were part of the
Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams (OPATT) were also
restricted from conducting any direct combat operations Each OPATT team consisted of
three individuals assigned to a brigade which it was hoped would lead to better human
rights behavior and combat employment258 As Cecil Bailey highlights ldquoFor nearly eight
years OPATTS cycled through the brigades each one extending the progress of the
proceeding teamrdquo259 The three-man teams generally consisted of ldquoa combat-arms major
preferably with an [Special Forces] background and two [Special Forces nonshy
commissioned officers] or warrant officerrdquo260
The OPATTS were also not allowed to conduct combat operations with their
counter parts As Cecil Bailey notes lsquoThe restrictions against US military members
accompanying units on operations was especially onerous to the advisors who often
256James S Corum and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003) 329
257Ibid 333
258Cecil E Bailey ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
259Ibid
260Ibid 21
105
cited the restriction as affecting not only their relationship with their counterpart but also
their professional credibilityrdquo261 Cecil Bailey highlights the accomplishment of the
OPATTs ldquoContemporary studies evaluating the US military role in El Salvador often
praise the brigade advisers as being the leading contributors to combat effectiveness
improved human rights performance and professional behavior supporting constitutional
democratic valuesrdquo Considering that a few more than 140 Special Forces OPATT
advisors were employed during this conflict from 1985 to 1992 and were able to advise
forty battalions 40000 soldiers is impressive262 The best measure of effectiveness of
this foreign internal defense program comes from an FMLN commander Joaquin
Villallobosrsquo when he explained that ldquoputting American advisers in the brigades was the
most damaging thing that happened to them during the war He believed that the
adviserrsquos influence on the [El Salvadoran military] made them more professional and less
abusive [denying the FMLN] much of its earlier propaganda advantage and
recruiting appealrdquo263
Analysis of this conflict clearly shows that this was not unconventional warfare
but instead foreign internal defense conducted overtly and in direct support to the El
Salvadoran military although years later it would become clear that many of these
advisers were conducting combat advisory missions as well The OPATT advisory
program was the only military program conducted with no other conventional military
units participating thus making this a decisive operation
261Ibid 24
262Ibid 28
263Ibid 27
106
Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan
The operations in Afghanistan after 11 September provide a window into the
future of unconventional warfare The DOD had not been involved in an unconventional
warfare campaign of this magnitude since the Korean War The interoperability between
the CIA and special operations was unprecedented as well The preparation phase
happened from the moments after 11 September until the first CIA elements began to
infiltrate into Afghanistan which included political preparations for coalition support and
assistance with airfields and over flight rights as well as preparing the international
community and the American population for the armed response to 11 September The
CIA then established initial contact or reestablishing contacts from previous efforts in
Afghanistan Due to the compressed time schedule numerous Special Forces Operational
Detachment-Alphas infiltrated concurrently with the CIA paramilitary teams and rapidly
organized built-up and employed their Afghan counterparts264 The Special Forces and
CIA paramilitary worked in concert The Special Forces employed the Afghans guerrillas
in concert with US airpower to produce overwhelming combat power that outmatched the
Taliban At the same time the CIA subverted the Taliban by turning many of the
Talibanrsquos units through fear of destruction or through other incentives the most popular
being monetary ldquorewardsrdquo for changing sides Buying loyalty brought a whole new
meaning to the often used ldquoby with and throughrdquo is literally ldquoBUY with and throughrdquo
The Taliban was overthrown in less than two months with the interim
government of Hamid Karzai being established in mid-December This marked the shift
264CPT (now Major) Glenn Thomas conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
107
from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense as efforts transitioned to protect
the new government and its legitimacy over the coming months while at the same time
developing an internal security capability to disrupt or defeat future Taliban and Al
Qarsquoida threats This effort continues today
Until the transition this was initially a clandestine effort to infiltrate into
Afghanistan then transitioned to low-visibility operations The Special Forces
unconventional warfare operations became a decisive operation although this was not the
original plan in which they were to support the introduction of conventional forces This
was also an example of the first large-scale unconventional warfare operation utilizing
Special Forces in combat advisory approach since the OSS operations in World War II
The Afghans were not demobilized to a large extent but instead were used for
some time as militias supporting the Special Forces until they were transferred to national
control or sent home Later in the foreign internal defense operations the remaining
militias were replaced by Afghan Army units and finally disbanded or demobilized but
unlike the doctrinal seventh phase demobilization this took place sometime after the
conflict ended Once the conflict transitioned to the postconflict and unconventional
warfare transitioned to foreign internal defense the signature became overt and all
efforts by Special Forces became a supporting effort to the larger conventional
headquarters The operational approach had remained combat support with the goal
being to return to peacetime engagement and only a direct or indirect operational
approach necessary
108
Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines
Operations in the Philippines after 11 September were another component of
Operation Enduring Freedom campaign Referred to as Operations Enduring Freedom-
Philippines the mission was to support the Philippine governmentrsquos counterinsurgency or
counterterrorism efforts to defeat the Abu Sayyaf an extremist-Islamic insurgent group
with ties to Al Qarsquoida Although a classic foreign internal defense mission the actual
mission statement for the post-11 September counterinsurgency operations in the
Philippines uses unconventional warfare as the operational term
On order in support of Operation Freedom Eagle FOB 11 conduct[s] [unconventional warfare] operations in the southern Philippines through by and with the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] to assist the GRP [Government of the Republic of the Philippines] in the destruction of terrorist organizations and separate the population from those Groupsrdquo265
In this definition the correct operational task should have been foreign internal defense or
even counterterrorism not unconventional warfare This mission statement also did not
help the Philippine government that was telling its citizens that the Special Forces were in
the Philippines conducting counterinsurgency training which it called ldquoExercise
Balikatanrdquo which means shoulder to shoulder Because of the negative political
implications for the elected Philippine government they imposed a US force cap limiting
the number of American personnel involved to six hundred266
To date this foreign internal defense operation has been extremely successful
having forced Abu Sayyaf from the Basilan Island and operations continue to defeat this
265Dr C H Briscoe ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
266Robert D Kaplan Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground (New York NY Random House 2005) 146
109
organization while training the Philippine Army to conduct effective counterinsurgency
operations against the other insurgent groups that are a continued threat to the
government Despite the use of unconventional warfare in the original mission statement
this effort has been a classic overt foreign internal defense mission Since there is no
other US military effort in the country it is the decisive operations at the operational-
level and a shaping operation in the larger context of the Global War on Terror Unlike
the operations in Afghanistan the operational approach in the Philippines is direct
support
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operations with the Kurdish resistance organization in Northern Iraq provide an
excellent example of unconventional warfare supporting conventional maneuver forces It
is even more spectacular that an American Special Forces Group in this case 10th
Special Forces Group (Airborne) numbering 5200 personnel (and not all of these were
inside of Northern Iraq) was able to coordinate the efforts of over fifty thousand Kurdish
Peshmerga fighters and to succeed in fixing thirteen of Saddam Husseinrsquos twenty
divisions along a 350-kilometer front267 Also of interest is the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistanrsquos division-sized attack to regain occupied salient along the border of Iran
which was controlled by the Al Qarsquoida affiliated group called Ansar al Islam The
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan were supported by a Special Forces Company working as
advisors to coordinate indirect fires and close air support
267Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Linda Robinson Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces (New York NY Public Affairs 2004) 299
110
From the night of infiltration the longest since World War II into Northern Iraq
the timeline was once again compressed and Special Forces detachments began to engage
the Iraqirsquos along the forward line of troops known as the green-line268 Combat
operations started quickly because the Kurdish resistance was already a large well-
organized insurgent organization that had been working with the CIA for decades and
only needed minimal training in the lethal aid that was provided by the US269 Although
combat operations along the green-line began within hours of the infiltration the first
major event was the attack on Ansar al Islam which began the morning of 28 March
2003 This two day attack saw Ansar al Islam routed and the Kurdish Peshmerga able to
liberate this salient Once this threat was eliminated the focus turned to the green-line
Ten days later Kirkuk and Mosul fell and operations in the North transitioned to what
seemed like postconflict stabilization Special Forces had successfully conducted the
second unconventional warfare operations in less than two years270 One other lesson of
this conflict was the unprecedented work that Special Forces conducted in concert with
the Kurdish underground Most of the Special Forcesrsquo doctrine is focused on ldquoguerrilla
warfarerdquo versus the clandestine arts of working with undergrounds
It is also interesting to note that 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) was unable
to develop a similar capability with Shia in Southern Iraq However unlike the Kurds the
Shia did not have a self-governed sanctuary like the Kurds and were heavily oppressed
268Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq
269Robert Baer See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism (New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001) 171-213
270Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq
111
by the Iraqi regime A final unconventional warfare effort was attempted using Iraqi ex-
patriots who received only rudimentary training prior to being inserted into Iraq
generally called the Free Iraqi Force271 Part of this force had been trained by the
conventional Army in Hungry prior to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Elements of 5th Special Forces Group were given the task to advise the Free Iraqi Forces
but the general sense among those involved was that the these Iraqis did not have the
training nor did the Special Forces advisors have the relationships with these
counterparts to be an effective force This was an example of a good idea gone bad in
many respects Had Special Forces trained these elements developed strong relationships
with their counterparts and then been inserted with them into Iraq as part of the overall
plan their effectiveness as a political tool might have been increased272
The Special Forces would then be called upon to continue the hunt for former
regime elements At the same time they began to train and operate with the 36th
Commandos These operations were successful but the growing insurgency was not
addressed until it had already grown exponentially Special Forces did everything in its
power to keep from conducting advisory support and were finally let of the hook when
271Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Robinson 275 Some confusion rings the FIF which was used to describe two groups of Iraqi ex-patriots one that was trained in civil affairs in Hungary and another element of soldiers Because they were all commonly referred to as FIF this is the convention that is used here
272Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and numerous discussions with individuals involved with this mission in Southern Iraq from August 2004 to the May 2006 and Robinson 299
112
the conventional military out of necessity established the Multi-National Security
Transition Command-Iraq273
Operations in Iraq had once again proven the usefulness of unconventional
warfare and at the same the limitations In the north during the first few days after
infiltration the Special Forces were operating clandestinely until major combat
operations in the north began This was an example of unconventional warfare shaping
the environment for the conventional decisive operation using combat advisors and
support including coordinated air interdiction Finally there was no demobilization of
Kurdish resistance members by Special Forces however there were inquiries into the
demobilization plan for each of the Kurdish factions274 It became quickly evident that
this was a task of enormous size when the current militias may be needed in the future
Because of this these elements were not demobilized but continued to operate as militias
in support of US Special Forces teams conducting foreign internal defense275
In the south efforts failed to generate a resistance force first because of the preshy
existing constraints on the Shia and second the warrsquos tempo was so fast the requirements
for an unconventional warfare effort to support the invasion were overcome by events
The Free Iraqi Forces were another element of the unconventional warfare puzzle in Iraq
but their contribution even politically was less than stellar Had the correct amount of
273Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) Available from httpwwwmnstci iraqcentcommilmissionhtm Internet accessed on 29 September 2004
274Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq April 2003
275Ibid
113
time energy and Special Forces advisors been elements of this program it might have
been more successful
Summary
The history of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense whether overt
or covert provides an interesting backdrop to the argument of whether these two
missions continue to be viable today and into the future Fifty years after the birth of
Special Forces and before the events of 11 September the decision was made that
unconventional warfare as defined by the Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann was no
longer a viable mission and would never be conducted as envisioned Less than three
years later Special Forces has successfully prosecuted two unconventional warfare
campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan using indigenous forces
instead of massive conventional formations and the other a shaping operation in northern
Iraq using the indigenous Kurds However despite these successes the current debate
focuses on the use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense against non-
state actors in a short-sighted version of the previous fifty year argument
114
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS
With an understanding of the historical background of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine this chapter will answer the secondary questions
What is unconventional warfare What is foreign internal defense and How are they
related Also this chapter will determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are applicable against non-state actors the final tertiary question The
combination of these answers will set the conditions to the answer the primary research
question in chapter 5 are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense as
currently defined applicable to current and future Special Forces operations
To answer these questions a comparison must be made between the results of the
last chapter the historical application of these two missions and their current definitions
The analysis will determine if there is a relationship between the two missions and will
conclude with the future of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
special emphasis on their application in the Global War on Terrorism and against non-
state actors
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare
Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition
In introducing this problem unconventional warfare was defined in chapter 1 to
provide the reader a point of departure for determining if the definition adequately
captured the historical application of unconventional warfare Once again the definition
of unconventional warfare is
115
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion276
An analysis of this definition provides some interesting findings when applied to the
historical examples presented in the previous chapter First the definition is correct that
these are ldquomilitary and paramilitary operationsrdquo They are military operations in that
unconventional warfare is used as an armed tool in place of conventional military
operations or to support other conventional operations
Second it is true that most of these operations have been of long duration
however the length of the operation is dependent on three factors first and foremost is
how much risk the political leadership is willing to take by putting Special Forces
soldiers into the target country earlier than declared hostilities to build an effective
insurgent force second if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or if
it is a shaping operation If it is the decisive operation then it will generally take longer
but if it is a shaping operation the length of time historically has been shorter While
historical examples may show that shaping operations are shorter operations such as the
Jedburghs and more recently 10th Group in Northern Iraq would have been more
effective if infiltration had occurred earlier The two contemporary examples of
unconventional warfare Afghanistan and Iraq validate this theory Afghanistan taking
longer because the unconventional warfare effort was the decisive operation so from
infiltration of teams in early October it took until mid-December to overthrow the
276JP 1-02
116
Taliban In Iraq unconventional and conventional operations started at the same time
with the Special Forces having very little time to organize or build up forces and within
three weeks the Coalition had successfully overthrown a much tougher opponent
Saddam Hussein
Based on current and proposed operational concepts which suggest the US
military can successfully defeat a country like Iraq in days versus weeks unconventional
warfare that begins concurrently with combat operations would not be viable as the
unconventional warfare effort in Southern Iraq demonstrate277 In this concept it will be
imperative to begin unconventional warfare months or weeks earlier than the planned
invasion The final conclusion to be drawn from this is that a time standard on this type of
operation may not be of use any longer however there are serious repercussions for not
giving Special Forces the time required to build an effective insurgency or resistance
Third unconventional warfare encompasses organizing training equipping
supporting and directing of the indigenous insurgent organization Each of these
elements are tasks in and of themselves that can be done indirectly directly or in combat
support roles They could be done indirectly such as conducting all of these tasks in a
third-party country or even through a third-party organization or front Examples of the
direct method may include conducting all these tasks in liberated sanctuary or safe areas
that do not include combat Obviously combat support would involve these tasks being
conducted while in a combat environment with the Special Forces or supporting agency
taking the same risks as the insurgents
277Brigadier General David Fastabend ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo (briefing slides for Joint Forces Command 12 April 2004) slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquo
117
Fourth one often missed component of the definition is the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo
This means that this is not a US-only definition but applies universally In other words
the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo could be Iran Syria China Cuba North Korea and even al Qarsquoida
not just the US In fact Abu Musab al-Zarqawirsquos operations in Iraq are nothing more than
an al Qarsquoida ldquoSpecial Forcesrdquo advisors conducting unconventional warfare by providing
training advising funding and a form of precision targeting--the suicide bomber--to the
Sunni insurgents278 Although not part of the definition this also highlights the
requirement to define the type of external support provided indirect direct and combat
in much the same way foreign internal defense support is described279
Fifth the definition attempts to capture all of the oddities of unconventional
warfare including the tactics--guerrilla warfare subversion and sabotage as well as the
environments and signatures of these operations--direct offensive low visibility covert
or clandestine The final part of the definition discusses ldquointelligence gatheringrdquo and
ldquoescape and evasionrdquo However these two elements apply to every Special Forces
mission and are not unconventional warfare specific This has led to the confusion of
skills versus missions the most notable being Advanced Special Operations Techniques
which are advanced skills that apply to all Special Forces missions and therefore cannot
be a mission in itself
278Major D Jones ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo (5 February 2005) scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
279Major (now Lieutenant Colonel) Mark Grdovic Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
118
Lastly the definition fails to capture the essence or purpose of unconventional
warfare--that it is the support to an insurgency Joint Publication 1-02 defines support to
insurgency as the ldquosupport provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of
a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflictrdquo280 This
definition clearly defines the purpose of unconventional warfare in much the same way
the foreign internal defense definition provides a purpose--to help another country free
and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency The purpose is
important as Hy S Rothstein shows because the lack of purpose may be the entire reason
for the confusion about unconventional warfare
Unfortunately the purpose of unconventional warfare is not so easily defined Certainly it must serve the national interests of the United States However there is no clear task so easily defined as the ldquodestruction of the enemy armyrdquo and no method so easily specified as ldquothe direct application of violent forcerdquo Consequently the basic questions about unconventional war have never been adequately answered281
While Hy Rothstein is correct in that the purpose and task is not defined in the definition
if the definition is taken in the context of the unconventional warfare doctrine then they
are readily apparent the task is to support an insurgency against a hostile regime or
occupier and the purpose is to overthrow the regime or remove the occupier Addressing
the task and purpose as outlined here may clear up the misunderstanding of the definition
280JP 1-02
281Hy S Rothstein Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare (Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006) 21
119
Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare
There are seven phases of US-sponsored insurgency the military definition being
unconventional warfare The seven phases are preparation initial contact infiltration
organization buildup combat employment and demobilization282 There have been
arguments as recently as 2001 by senior Special Forces leaders that the seven-phased
unconventional warfare model is no longer valid However based on the most recent
operations the seven-phased model is extremely accurate in describing the support to the
insurgency although the phases may have been compressed by the same circumstances
that affected Jedburgh operations in France--Special Forces were not infiltrated into the
sector until conventional combat operations were already underway283
Phase I of unconventional warfare ldquopreparationrdquo includes the decision to use
military force against a threatening nation the planning and the preparations for its use
and the psychological preparations of the threatening nationrsquos population the
international community and the American public284 Some confusion exists with respect
to another operational term operational preparation of the environment which is easily
confused with this phase of unconventional warfare Thomas OrsquoConnell DOD Assistant
Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict provides some insight into
what operational preparation of the environment is and is not during an interview with
282Department of the Army Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations (Washington DC Department of the Army April 2003) 1-11 to 1-17
283Kershner 2-2
284FM 3-05201 1-11
120
Linda Robinson ldquoItrsquos becoming familiar with the area in which you might have to
work Itrsquos nonhostile recon Itrsquos not intrusive Others without military background
may view it as saber rattling but itrsquos as far from that as you can getrdquo285 Linda Robinson
continues ldquoIn the 1980rsquos OrsquoConnell said special operations forces spent lots of time
preparing to respond to hijackings kidnappings and takeovers of embassies To do that
they visited embassies and airports and examined possible helicopter landing zones and
assault zonesrdquo286
An example of the residual confusion can be found in an article by Colonel
Walter Herd ldquoIn war fighting if your fighting by with amp [sic] through indigenous forces
or if yoursquore collecting intelligence and conducting operational preparation of the
environment by with and through indigenous forces your conducting unconventional
warfarerdquo287 This confusion is politically sensitive in terms of how another nation may
define unconventional warfare If they define it as support to an insurgency then
obviously just conducting operational preparation of the environment if it is mistaken for
the first phase of unconventional warfare could have grave repercussions much like the
mistaken unconventional warfare mission statement during Operation Enduring Freedom-
Philippines discussed in the previous chapter Thomas OrsquoConnell is correct when he
stipulates that operational preparation of the environment can apply to any special
285Linda Robinson ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet accessed on 12 May 2006
286Ibid
287Colonel Walter Herd ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service (13 June 2005) available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet accessed on 12 May 06
121
operations mission from counterterrorism to counterproliferation With respect to
unconventional warfare it may allow long-term relationships with host nation partners to
develop just like they do during normal foreign internal defense training missions that
may ease the initial contact phase of unconventional warfare if that were ever necessary
An example of this relationship--US Special Forces conducted foreign internal
defense in a country then for some reason the government was overthrown and these
former military personnel that had worked with the Special Forces are now the cadre of
the insurgency In fact due to vast number of coalition operations and combined training
exercises the long-term relationships that are developing throughout the world may
change the nature of the second phase--initial contact Instead of initial contact it may be
reminiscent of the CIA contacting former associates in Afghanistan or in Northern Iraq
about a new endeavor--overthrowing the current regime
Phase II ldquoinitial contactrdquo was originally in the CIA charter288 The purpose of
this phase is to conduct ldquoan accurate assessment of the potential resistance and
[arrange] for the reception and initial assistancerdquo of the US operational elements that will
be infiltrated during the next phase289 This is generally a covert or clandestine activity
normally conducted in one of two ways First of all this initial contact is likely to be the
first time that a representative of the US government contacts or approaches an insurgent
organization that has only recently emerged or has never been contacted by the US
before This could be due to any number of reasons such as political or geographic
isolation The second type of approach the inherently easier of the two is with a
288FM 3-05201 1-12 and Bank 160-2 173
289FM 3-05201 1-14
122
previously contacted group that is now in a position of influence that the US would like
to capitalize on to further US national interests Although in contact with US
representatives prior to this time in Phase II this group is being asked for the first time to
work with the US in an unconventional warfare campaign to overthrow the regime As
explained in the description of Phase I having contacts with numerous groups throughout
the world greatly benefits the US and increased the speed of response in a crisis Also
during this phase if the security environment is high risk for US personnel resistance
personnel could be exfiltrated trained in a third party country and when ready inserted
as the only operational element that will infiltrate in phase III--infiltration--instead of US
operational elements
Phase III ldquoinfiltrationrdquo is the entry of the first DOD operational elements into the
insurgentsrsquo areas and has been the doctrinal hand-off between the other governmental
agencies and Special Forces290 This will be the first significant presence in theater
which may now include forward operational bases or other command control or logistics
nodes supporting the committed operational forces In indirect approaches this may not
be the infiltration of US operational elements but newly trained indigenous operational
assets
Phase IV ldquoorganizationrdquo ensures that the indigenous forces are effectively
organized for the buildup phase Phase V291 This has historically included in-processing
issuing weapons pay oaths to the future government and medical screenings However
290FM 3-05201 1-15 3-1 2 and Banks 172-175 and John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
291FM 3-05201 1-15
123
this process has been much more difficult to accomplish in the compressed timelines and
large numbers of insurgents to in-process during the last two unconventional warfare
efforts The concept is sound and protects US interests by providing a record of what
training was conducted and weapons were issued It also provides a means of providing
the emerging government some records of those with training that could work as militias
or conventional soldiers The end state of this phase is an insurgent force that is organized
by function and mission capable of growth if necessary and with the appropriate
command and control structures in place
Phase V ldquobuild-uprdquo is the growth of the insurgency The operational elements
must balance the assigned mission with security and logistical support capability In
insurgency it is not the size that matters but effects and survivability Therefore the size
of the insurgent force is not based on preconceived end strength but on three aspects
effect that needs to be generated for mission accomplishment the constraints of the
security environment and the logistical constraints292 In a less security-constrained
environment with freedom of movement such as liberated areas or sanctuary areas then
larger forces can be organized and built-up In a constrained security environment for
example urban areas smaller cellular networks are used for security and survivability
The last aspect of build-up is the ability of the area to support an insurgent organization
In rural or agrarian societies that mass produce food then the population will be able to
logistically support a larger insurgent group In a constrained environment such as a city
292Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) 1-4 to 1-5
124
or if the counterinsurgency forces have implemented rationing then the area is going to
be less capable to support a movement larger than a small cell
Phase VI ldquocombat employmentrdquo begins with the offensive air or ground
campaign by conventional forces or if purely an unconventional warfare campaign such
as Afghanistan a Special Forces and indigenous ground campaign293 The insurgents will
conduct operations either until link-up with conventional forces or the defeat of the
government or occupying forces leading to the eventual take over of the country If the
insurgents are unable to gain victory or control of the environment they may be forced
into one of the following options (1) conduct a retreat withdrawal or delaying action to
trade space for time (2) disperse into small cells and hide within the population or
restricted terrain (3) establish a defense in restricted terrain if a larger force to regroup
reorganize and prepare for further offensive operations or (4) withdraw to sanctuary
areas which may be in an adjoining country The worst case would be for the insurgents
to be decisively engaged and destroyed
Phase VII ldquodemobilizationrdquo has historically meant disarming and disbanding the
insurgentsrsquo overt military forces such as guerrillas and returning them to their pre-crisis
place in society However if the experiences since 11 September are an indicator in the
future the majority of insurgent forces will transition to local militias and general-purpose
forces in preparation for establishing a secure environment until national police and
military forces can take over this role entirely At such a time as a nation-wide security
force is employed then the remaining ldquomilitiasrdquo or ldquoirregularsrdquo will be demobilized by
their government Historically US unconventional warfare efforts have ended in three
293FM 3-05201 1-17 3-1
125
ways demobilization termination of support with no demobilization and recently in
Iraq and Afghanistan the insurgent forces have become local militias and in some cases
national forces and are not actually demobilized until well into foreign internal defense
operations Because of these three possible outcomes ldquodemobilizationrdquo may not be the
best description of this phase Even in the unconventional warfare doctrinal manual FM
3-05201 demobilization is said to be a ldquomajor activity of transitionrdquo294 ldquoTransitionrdquo is a
much more accurate term than demobilization
Foreign Internal Defense
Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition
Interestingly the epitome of a clear definition is Foreign Internal Defense JP 1shy
02 defines Foreign Internal Defense as ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of
a government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo295 JP 3-071 Joint
Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes
Foreign Internal Defense into three types of support indirect direct (not involving
combat operations) and combat support296 As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories
represent significantly different levels of US diplomatic and military commitment and
riskrdquo297
294Ibid 4-2 295JP 1-02
296Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
297Ibid I-4 126
There is also some debate if Special Forces conduct foreign internal defense or
instead conduct a lesser operation under foreign internal defense such as
counterinsurgency or training since this is an overarching term for a myriad of
interagency programs that span all the elements of a supporting nationrsquos national
power298 The argument is valid although the clarity of this operation comes from the
part of the definition that states the conditions to be met ldquoto free or protect its society
from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo This portion of the definition is the
driving factor behind efforts of Special Forces The fact that this effort takes an
interagency effort supporting another governmentrsquos internal defense and development
plan provides context to the solution which is important in this day of the military
assuming a heavy burden in Iraq and Afghanistan A similar argument could be made
with respect to counterinsurgency and if the US actually conducts this operation or only
supports another countryrsquos counterinsurgency efforts However if insurgency is an
overarching term for any type of armed resistance aimed at either the overthrow of a
government or the removal of an occupying power then there are instances such as Iraq
where the initial counterinsurgency efforts may be a unilateral US effort or as a coalition
As the new government is established the operational approach begins to shift from
combat support In efforts such as the Philippines the effort is direct support to help the
host nation defeat an internal threat while meeting US national objectives of defeating al
Qarsquoida associated networks
298LTC (retired) Mark Lauber Multiple discussion with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
127
So although debate may exist about the role of Special Forces in foreign internal
defense the definition is clear where the unconventional warfare definition is not in the
condition or end-state of the operation The foreign internal defense doctrine also
provides the three levels of support which further clarifies the types of support provided
These two elements may be the solution for clarifying the unconventional warfare
definition
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Although it is easy to understand that unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are different and likely opposite in their end states considering the historical
background presented in the last chapter it is difficult to tie this directly to why words
matter Some may say that as long as the Special Forces operators understands what they
are supposed to be doing on the ground at the tactical level everything else will fall in
place However this argument is much more fundamental than it would seem Regardless
of the similarities in tactics techniques and procedures at the tactical level it is the end
state that matters most Iraq provides a good example of this concept Abu Musab
Zarqawi beheaded prisoners while videotaping the brutal execution and received
relatively minor international reaction Compare this to the global reaction and
international outcry when the US soldiers humiliated the prisoners at Abu Ghriab prison
Although the actions of the US soldiers were extremely unprofessional and an
embarrassment to the US the prisoners did not die horrendous deaths The beheading de-
legitimized the US and Iraqi efforts because it added to the sense of insecurity and
violence and appealed to younger members of the Muslim society that were prone to
128
jihadi-propaganda At the same time the acts of the US soldiers de-legitimized the US
and Iraqi efforts by completely countering the US information operationrsquos efforts to
portray the US as a liberator The US wanted to show how the US was freeing the Iraqis
from the oppression of Saddam yet the Iraqi citizens were being mistreated by their so-
called liberators Had the soldiers understood the concept of legitimacy and that every
one of their actions either helped or hurt the US and the fledgling Iraqi governmentrsquos
legitimacy and with it the chances of success they may not have made these mistakes
The same can be said of US militaryrsquos preference for kinetic effects versus
nonkinetics in counterinsurgency Had the US military understood from the beginning of
the postconflict phase that legitimacy was the most important commodity for US efforts
then ldquocordon and searchrdquo would have been replaced with the ldquocordon and knockrdquo early in
the conflict Instead this concept took nearly two years to be implemented across Iraq
While these are not specifically Special Forces examples they are used here since the
background knowledge is more widely known
Logical Lines of Operations
One method for clarifying the relationship between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense is a logical lines of operation comparison Logical lines of
operations are defined by Dr Jack D Kem as ldquoa cognitive operational framework
planning construct used to define the concept of multiple and often disparate actions
arranged in a framework unified by purpose All logical lines of operation should lead
129
to the [Center of Gravity or COG]rdquo299 In the following examples the short title for the
logical line of operation is labeled and the operational objectives the conditions decisive
points or effects that must be met along that line are defined by boxed number at the
bottom of the chart The corresponding numbered boxes are then placed on the lines of
operations which they support As Dr Kem explains ldquo[operational] objectives in a logical
line of operation depict causal relationships that are both linear and nonlinear
Operational objectives are depicted along a logical line of operation the same operational
objectives may be depicted along more than one logical line of operationrdquo300
While both of the lines of operation charts provide large number of operational
objectives boxes or circles and their corresponding numbers it should be noted that the
actual objectives chosen will depend on the operational considerations--environment
signature relationship and approach In fact some of the objectives could become lines
of operations of their own especially as these lines of operations are translated into
mission orders for subordinate units It should also be noted that the following lines of
operations are for the most part military lines of operations and support or are supported
by the interagency and the conventional military lines of operations across the elements
of national power--diplomatic informational military and economic--when appropriate
Finally because information operations are so important to this type of warfare they are
integral to every objective and therefore there is not an additional information operation
line of operation
299Dr Jack D Kem Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade (Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd) 34-35
300Ibid
130
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 2 provides an example of the logical lines of operation for unconventional
warfare The diagram captures all of the operational considerations-environment
signature relationship and approach and the logical lines of operation The operational
considerations have a significant effect on how the operational objectives are reached
For example one operational objective might be to organize an indigenous resistance
How this is done depends on the environment and the constraints of the operational
signature So in a covert operation conducted in a hostile environment a direct or combat
approach may be used However under the same considerations but in a denied area
where US personnel cannot penetrate the security environment indigenous personnel
may have to be trained in an adjacent country and then reinserted into the operational
area
131
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines
The logical lines shown in figure 2 are examples of the types of Special Forces
specific logical lines of operation along upon which they would apply their
unconventional warfare advising training and equipping capabilities and skills In this
example the logical lines of operation and the longer descriptions are
132
1 Gain Popular Support US advisors ensure that all operations take into
consideration the population Operations are also conducted to show the ineptitude of the
government and its failings to protect the population and its basic needs which would
include attacks on governmental infrastructure
2 Gain International Support Actions must also take into consideration the
international community One of the key elements of this effort is the insurgentrsquos ability
to adhere to the laws of land warfare in order to gain belligerent status throughout the
conflict Other factors include highlighting the governments or occupiers excessive use of
force or human rights violations
3 Develop Insurgent Infrastructure Organize and employ operational
intelligence logistics and political infrastructure infiltrate government agencies develop
capabilities tied to the desired effect provide lethal and nonlethal support
4 Defeat Government forces (or the occupying forces) This is done either
physically or psychologically by attacking the security forces center of gravity and
critical vulnerabilities and capabilities while protecting the insurgent force and US effort
support Coalition land forces during invasion if conducting shaping operations
5 Prepared for Postconflict The insurgents with the help of the US begin to
develop the long-range plans on preparing the environment for the postconflict phases by
establishing underground or shadow governments from the local to national level
identifying the personnel that will take over the key government positions at the
transition secure or protect key infrastructure and psychologically prepare the
population for the transition
133
6 Shape for the Combined Forces Land Component Commander When
unconventional warfare is a shaping operation for a larger conventional decisive
operations then the insurgents set the conditions such as forcing the continued
commitment of forces to rear area security providing intelligence and guides
establishing downed aircrew networks and seizing or securing limited objectives
In this case the center of gravity is the population The unconventional warfare
end state would be the de-legitimized hostile government or an occupying power
overthrown and conditions set for the establishment and protection of a new government
Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis provide a good
example of the logical lines of operation in foreign internal defense information
operations security operations development of security forces reestablishing essential
service developing government infrastructure and promoting economic growth301 All of
the logical lines of operation are aimed at the center of gravity--the people Like the
insurgents the government must gain and maintain its legitimacy from the people The
foreign internal defense end state is a ldquosecure and stable environment maintained by
indigenous forces under the direction of a legitimate national government that is
freely elected and accepts economic pluralismrdquo302
301Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
302Ibid
134
Figure 3 provides another example of possible logical lines of operations again
related to Special Forces foreign internal defense capabilities They are
1 Security Operations The first priority for any government facing an insurgency
is to establish a secure environment through population control measure offensive
operations such as search and attack cordon and search or cordon and knock to deny the
insurgentsrsquo access to the population and freedom of movement
2 Gain Popular Support Gaining and maintaining the support of the population is
the overall goal and path to victory since the population is the center of gravity therefore
it is imperative for long-term success that the population views the government as
legitimate It is equally important for the US effort to be viewed as legitimate versus
being viewed as an occupier or supporting a puppet government
3 Gain International Support It is also important for the governmentrsquos internal
defense efforts to be legitimized accepted and supported by the international community
To be successful most governments will rely on the international community to provide
economic aid or relief of debt and moral support
4 Defeat Insurgents If done correctly the first three lines should de-legitimize
the insurgents and lead to their lasting defeat This line will attack the hard-core
insurgents Some may succumb to offers of amnesty but most will need to be killed or
captured through offensive operations
5 Develop Host Nation Internal Security Internal security forces such as local
and national police forces key facility protection corps diplomat security personnel
coast guard criminal investigation paramilitary forces for counterinsurgency local and
national level special weapons and tactics capabilities will be necessary to defeat the
135
internal threat as a law enforcement matter The coalition forces will provide security for
the entire country Then as the internal security forces are trained the coalition will
transition to only protecting the nation from external threats until such a time as the
actual national military force is trained equipped and can conduct unilateral operations
As in the unconventional warfare model the population is once again the center
of gravity The end state is a legitimate government that the population trusts and is able
to detect and defeat internal and external threats
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation
136
Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 4 now builds on the previous two sections and shows the significance of
the differences between these two operations In the figure the center of gravity is
depicted by the box The sphere floats in this box and its legitimacy is affected by the
success or failures of US support Although both unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are depicted simultaneously only one operation would be conducted at
anyone time against a government Beginning with the unconventional warfare effort on
the left the logical lines of operations affect the legitimacy of the government In a
perfect situation the government is unable to counter this threat and the government loses
legitimacy and ultimately fails leading to the insurgent victory which takes place when
the ldquosphererdquo is dislodged to the right This success can be further enhanced if
conventional forces are added to the equation which in theory will cause a much faster
defeat of the enemy government
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model
137
If on the other hand this is a foreign internal defense mission the US efforts
along the logical lines of operation are aimed at supporting the government and
attempting to defeat or dislocate the insurgency If operations progress well along the
logical lines of operation then the population begins to favor the government pushing
the sphere to the left If done correctly the sphere will continue to move left as the
military in concert with a responsive government provides a secure environment and
will ultimately lead to the separation of the insurgents from the populations Success for
this foreign internal defense is a strong legitimate government capable of identifying and
defeating subversion lawlessness and insurgency on their own
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
There is no discussion in doctrine of a transition between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense In fact the idea that unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are related has never really been articulated In a major operation or
campaign involving conflict and postconflict environments there is an identifiable
transition period between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The
transition between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense happens at the
point when US or Coalition forces have removed the regime and have become the
occupying power or have installed an indigenous governing body even if only for the
interim
US forces had a difficult time identifying that the insurgency was growing
Special Forces understood that something was happening but didnrsquot understand clearly
138
that what was taking place was a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense in both Iraq and Afghanistan Even if they may have suspected that the
transition was taking place finding and neutralizing the top fifty-five of the former
regime in Iraq and senior al Qarsquoida and Taliban leadership in Afghanistan became
priority one This was likely due to the fact that the goal was regime removal but the
order to kill or capture the top fifty-five led to the over-focus on this task by Special
Forces and the other special operations forces
In Iraq more so than Afghanistan the insurgents spent the first two months
establishing their underground or clandestine command control intelligence and lines of
communication networks Once their networks were established and secure then they
began to increase their capability to prosecute terrorism guerrilla warfare and in some
place like Fallujah and An Anbar province a low-level form of mobile warfare having
been able to organize and employ large forces capable of holding terrain for short periods
of time In Afghanistan due to a much smaller population of pro-Taliban and al Qarsquoida
fighters and less urbanized terrain the insurgency has grown much more slowly over the
last five years and will continue to grow at a slower rate By the time that Special Forces
and the conventional military identified a transition to foreign internal defense the
insurgency had already escalated well into the guerrilla warfare stage Had this transition
been identified earlier counterinsurgency operations could have been conducted to
disrupt the insurgentsrsquo clandestine networks before they could be established and the
insurgents could gain the initiative
139
The unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense transition point can be
modeled using ldquothe Staterdquo versus ldquothe Counter-Staterdquo relationship303 The State is the
enemy government or an occupying power The Counter-State would be the insurgent
elements assisted by or in conjunction with US forces The goal is to either remain or
become the State For example the US and its coalition partners including the supported
insurgents are the Counter-State and use military force to overthrow the regime or the
State
The transition point is the point at which the Counter-State successfully defeats
the regime and becomes ldquothe new Staterdquo An important revelation for the new State
happens at the transition point The new State must immediately switch its mindset and
tactics to protect itself in order to now remain the State The transition from the Counter-
State to the State corresponds to the transition between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense as well as the transition between conflict and postconflict
So what happens to ldquothe old Staterdquo At the time the old State becomes the
Counter-State it has two options accept defeat or not If it chooses defeat then the
postconflict nation building will occur more rapidly and with less violence than has been
encountered in Iraq as in the case of Germany and Japan after they were occupied by the
Allies in World War II If the Counter-state does not accept defeat then it begins using
303The State versus Counter-State theory was originally based on a presentation on the relationship between the counterinsurgent and the insurgent by Dr Gordon McCormick US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division presented at the Unconventional Warfare Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC for further discussion of Dr McCormickrsquos ldquoDiamond modelrdquo see Lieutenant Colonel (P) Eric P Wendtrsquos article ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
140
tactics appropriate to its capabilities either political or military or a combination to
regain its State status William Flavin explains these options in his article on conflict
termination ldquoWhen the friendly forces can freely impose their will on the adversary the
opponent may have to accept defeat terminate active hostilities or revert to other types
of conflict such as geopolitical actions or guerrilla warfarerdquo304 The former regime
elements in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are examples of new Counter-States that
have not accepted defeat
The confusion between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
comes much like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan when the US and the Coalition became
the State prior to the end of major combat operations Flavin explains that the transition
point or what he calls conflict termination is ldquothe formal end of fighting not the end of
conflictrdquo305 In Iraq after the regime was defeated combat operations were still ongoing
but inadequate steps were taken to ensure that the US and coalition protected the interim
government and themselves as the State
The fact that Special Forces never positively identified this transition and
continued to conduct what they thought was unconventional warfare versus attempting to
disrupt the budding insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan is important This failure to
identify the shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense had a
detrimental effect on US stabilization operations First the unconventional warfare
mindset focused Special Forcesrsquo continued efforts on hunting former regime elements or
304William Flavin ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet accessed on 24 August 2004
305Ibid
141
on other activities that were tangential or irrelevant to securing the State The mindset
was that the mission was not over until all of the key members of the former regime were
killed or captured In Iraq this focus was provided by the ldquo55-most wantedrdquo deck of
cards In Afghanistan the hunt for Usama bin Laden and his associates continued
unabated with all efforts focused on him
In both cases Special Forces efforts were focused on single individuals with little
regard for other more crucial missions aimed at securing the environment and the State
This allowed the insurgents and the foreign fighters to establish underground elements-shy
command intelligence operational and support networks The establishment of
underground organizations allowed the insurgency to transition from a latent or incipient
phase to the guerrilla warfare phase
The Transition Curve Model
One of the key observations of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is that at
some point in both conflicts the operations shifted from conflict to postconflict and for
Special Forces particularly from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense The
question that arises is where did this ldquoshiftrdquo or ldquotransitionrdquo take place with relation to
time space or effort As shown in figure 5 graphing these operations with respect to
time and overall US effort including unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
operations a pattern emerges that models what would be the ldquobest caserdquo scenario--a nice
clean bell curve that goes from minimal US effort and Special Forces presence in the
peacetime engagement phases and begins to rise as the decision is made to use military
force to overthrow or defeat another government At the decisive point the conflict phase
has been successful and the enemy government is defeated which signifies the shift from 142
conflict to postconflict This model provides a framework for mapping progress and for
planning campaigns
The Transition Curve (see figure 5) was originally developed to model Special
Forcesrsquo participation in full spectrum operations focused first on the seven phases of US-
sponsored unconventional warfare second on the identification of the conflict
termination point which marks the transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense and finally to model a nine-phased foreign internal defense operation
and the eventual return to peacetime engagement306 The graph was developed to correct
the doctrinal misunderstanding surrounding the Special Forces missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan307 The transition point draws a distinct line between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense to reduce confusion
306The nine-phased foreign internal defense model was developed by the author based on his experience in Kosovo to capture the salient steps that must take place to return to prewar levels and peacetime engagement For this study they will only be referred in general terms
307The author developed the graph as an instructor at the Special Forces Detachment Officer Qualification course in September of 2003
143
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model
144
The unconventional warfare phases are the same as discussed above although
ldquotransitionrdquo has been substituted for demobilization For this study a non-doctrinalshy
phased foreign internal defense model was developed and used to allow the phases to be
mapped on the transition curve The nine phases used here start at the transition point
(signifying the establishment of an interim government or occupation decree) phase I-
gain control phase II-secure the environment phase III-humanitarian response phase
IV-training and employment phase V-reconstruction phase VI-sovereignty phase VII-
revitalization phase VIII-neutralization and phase IX-normalization308
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq
Now that the phases have been described the transition curve will be used to model
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq The Afghanistan model (see figure 6) only shows the
initial year to keep the focus on the transition phase and not what is happening today
Afghanistan is unusual since it began with such a small decisive force initially there
were only three Special Forces operational detachments-Alphas later building up to a
total of seventeen by December of 2001 with very few conventional forces engaged until
the transition point and the establishment of the interim government At the transition
point in mid-December 2001 larger US and coalition force build-up took place
However the only areas that were secure were the major cities Everywhere else was
called the ldquowild wild Westrdquo309 The continued lack of security had made it difficult for
any reconstruction effort outside the major cities forcing some nongovernmental
308The nine phases were developed from the authorrsquos combined experiences in Kosovo and Northern Iraq
309Captain T interview
145
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)
146
organizations to withdraw US military civil affairs teams and the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams have become more active in an effort to pacify many of the
unsecured areas310
The level of insecurity has been steadily increasing over time This security
problem can also be tied to the efforts of US military In most cases Special Forces have
not changed their mission since the war began to stay on the offensive against remnants
of the Taliban and Al Qarsquoida Special Forces at this point should simply focus on
establishing a secure environment by taking an active role in training indigenous police
and military forces and acting as advisors to these units as they deploy in the outlying
areas This in turn will make the population feel more comfortable about providing
human intelligence which can then be acted on to neutralize the insurgent remnants
For Iraq (see figure 7) it is obvious that the country is not secure and is potentially getting
less secure as the insurgents continue to disrupt the stability and reconstruction efforts
This difficulty began with the uncontrolled looting at first and now the US is playing
catch-up to the insurgents It was not until the insurgency had become organized that the
coalition began trying to disrupt it instead of disrupting it before it ever had a chance to
get started
The other interesting aspect of this graph is with respect to force numbers
Immediately after the conflict it may have taken 130000 coalition troops to secure the
most difficult areas in and around the ldquoSunni Trianglerdquo However over the first several
months the insurgency began to grow in strength at the same time the conventional army
310Dobbins 140-141
147
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom)
148
was forced to take on multiple roles such as training and advising economic
reconstruction and local governance All of these secondary tasks meant that there were
few forces to establish security Add to this the collapse of the Iraqi police and the
disbandment of the Iraqi Army as well as the US attrition based counterinsurgency
efforts the insurgency grew exponentially during the first two years Now with current
coalition and Iraqi troop levels the security situation is still unfavorable yet there are
nearly twice as many troops with a total of 211700 Iraqi security forces trained and
equipped311 The graph also shows that the US conventional forces have to make up the
differences between the current indigenous force levels and what they need to be Until
this line grows to meet the US Force levels then the US will have to continue to commit
large numbers of ground troops
Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model
One question that arises from this analysis of the phases of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense is how do these phases and the transition point
correlate to the new joint operational phasing Figure 8 provided a visual example of the
joint phases and the corresponding phases of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
It is apparent upon further analysis that how these phases match up to the joint
phasing diagram depends if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or
the supporting effort It should also be noted that operational preparation of the
311Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report (Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005) slide 8
149
environment happens prior to the operational plan being approved by the President In
this sense operational preparation of the environment ends with the approval of the
operational plan and the first phase of unconventional warfare begins Once again this
highlights that operational preparation of the environment is a different mission set from
unconventional warfare and is applicable to any mission
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed
Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Note Numbering is authorrsquos
150
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense have a permanent place in
the future range of military operations doctrine The 2006 US Special Operations
Command posture statement highlights this fact stating ldquo[Special operations forcesrsquo] key
role in the long-term fight will be conducting [unconventional warfare] and [foreign
internal defense] to build foreign capabilities that deny terrorist organizations the ability
to sustain their effortsrdquo312 However in the same posture statement they define
unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo313 What are not clear are the differences in indigenous forces and
host nation forces nor does this definition of unconventional warfare provide the purpose
of working with by and through The idea that unconventional warfare is working by
with and through other forces indigenous or surrogates is not a new concept or point of
confusion found only in the US Special Operations Command posture statement The
Special Forces definition of unconventional warfare found in FM 3-0520 is the same as
defined in JP 1-02 except that through with and by are added ldquo[Unconventional
Warfare] is a broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations predominantly
conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo314
312United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 6 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
313Ibid
314FM 3-0520 2-1
151
One of the difficulties applying unconventional warfare as an overarching term to
the war on terror is the context of the doctrine which shows that unconventional warfare
is used to support armed indigenous forces aimed at overthrowing the government of a
nation-state and therefore does not apply against the than it cannot be used against a non-
state actor Other than Afghanistan al Qarsquoida has not yet successfully occupied any other
foreign nations Operations using indigenous or surrogate forces that are not aimed at the
overthrow of a government would more precisely be called foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism or counter-proliferation All of
these operations can doctrinally be conducted with surrogate forces but are not
unconventional warfare
This subtlety is another important aspect of why words matter An example of this
is the CIArsquos training of an Afghan unit to capture Usama bin Laden in 1998--a classic
example of counterterrorism not unconventional warfare as some would stipulate315
Another example of this concept comes from World War II when Aaron Bank was given
a mission to ldquoraise a company strength unit of German defectors military and civilian
conduct subversion sabotage and guerrilla actions and above all capture high-ranking
Nazisrdquo in what was believed to be their last holdout areas in the Austrian Alps316 Merely
by the subversion sabotage and guerrilla warfare aspects of this mission it would seem
to be a form of unconventional warfare however due to the short duration and limited
315ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo CBS News (15 September 2004) available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet accessed on 24 April 2006
316Bank 72-74
152
objectives of the mission of harassment versus overthrow it better qualifies it as a direct
action mission
In determining the future usefulness of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense three threat models have to be addressed those within the borders of a
state those that transnational or non-state actors and those in the amorphous
ldquoungoverned spaces or failed nations
In the first case threats within the border of a nation unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense will always have important roles The possible nation state
threats are hostile nations (Iraq) rogue nations (North Korea) states that sponsor
terrorism and insurgency (Iran and Syria) and states that are seized or controlled by al
Qarsquoida most likely within the caliphate boundary are exactly what unconventional
warfare was developed for--to overthrow regimes by supporting insurgency
As the previous example and the historical analysis demonstrate the future
foreign internal defense possibilities and applications are endless As has been witnessed
foreign internal defense can be used across the spectrum of conflict--from peacetime to
high-intensity postconflict environments--where a government friendly or passive to the
US needs help to effectively combat growing or potential insurgency subversion or
lawlessness Thus foreign internal defense is likely to be the primary mission due to the
number of friendly countries that face insurgency while unconventional warfare will be
reserved for the cases where there is a hostile rogue failed or terrorist-sponsoring
country
The second case is against non-state actors or transnational threats that threaten
regions or seek to upset the global balance and are not bound by borders The problem
153
with applying unconventional warfare against a non-state actor that is not in control of a
nation is that unconventional warfare was designed for use against a hostile government
or occupying power within a state Al Qarsquoida is neither a state nor an occupier as of yet
although the Taliban-led and al Qarsquoida supported Afghanistan could be the closest model
Al Qarsquoida and its associated movements are better classified as a global insurgency All
three of these elements eliminate unconventional warfare as the correct overall operation
term to be used to counter al Qarsquoida or other non-state actors The ldquoglobalrdquo aspect of this
insurgency also does not support the use of foreign internal defense as an overarching
term either since the problem is bigger than a single nation yet it is related to the defense
of the current global systems or global status quo In these cases there will be some
countries that are threatened by insurgencies supported by non-state actors such as the
insurgencies in Iraq and the Philippines in which case foreign internal defense will the
operation that has to be conducted to defeat these elements In the case of a hostile
regime that either supports a non-state actor is a puppet of the non-state actor or in fact
has been taken over by the non-state actor than unconventional warfare will be used to
overthrow these unfriendly regimes
The final threat model is that of the failed nation or ungoverned spaces Failed
states are best described as states that have no or minimally functioning governments
The Taliban run Afghanistan without its al Qarsquoida influences provides a good example
of a failed nation Even in failed states a State and a Counter-State can be identified In
the case of a hostile State unconventional warfare could be used by supporting the
Counter-State The Taliban State and the Northern Alliance Counter-State in Afghanistan
prior to 11 September may provide a good example of this relationship In the case of a
154
failed nation but with a friendly State foreign internal defense could be conducted to
strengthen the legitimacy and capability of the friendly State in hopes of developing a
functioning government
These failed states and the above premises on the State and Counter-State could
also easily be described as ungoverned spaces as well but in the context of this analysis
ungoverned spaces are areas where there is no effective government control even though
these areas are within the borders of a sovereign nation This area may also extend across
the border into neighboring countries as well such as the tri-border region in South
American where Brazil Paraguay and Argentina intersect and there is no effective
government control which enables criminal activity to thrive In these cases the solution
is to conduct foreign internal defense to help the government regain control of the
ungoverned spaces as the US tried during the White Star program in eastern Laos during
the Vietnam War Another solution when there is no viable government to support in
these efforts is to use a United Nations sanctioned operation or another international
coalition effort such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to move in and provide
security and build a government The US could do this unilaterally but based on the
current operations and domestic support it is unlikely that the US commit to such a
mission This mission would be the far end of the foreign internal defense scale and
would resemble the US efforts in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and no effective
government system operating
The discussion on Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense roles in the future is further complicated by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense
Review which uses the undefined term ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo to
155
describe the campaign against al Qarsquoida and its associated movements Global
unconventional warfare defined within the complete doctrinal context of unconventional
warfare means ldquosupport to global insurgencyrdquo Certainly this was not the intention of
calling it unconventional warfare but it does bring up a larger debate about the missions
that Special Forces will be conducting One problem is the misunderstanding of the
definition and doctrine of unconventional warfare and the other problem is that there is a
sense that anything that is not conventional must be unconventional with little thought
going into the meaning of the words Although well-intentioned at some point the use of
this terminology will likely have some semblance to the failed attempts in the summer of
2005 to change the global war on terror to global struggle against violent extremism or
war on extremism because the global war on terror did not correctly describe the war In
the same way ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo has some political baggage based on the
missing doctrinal context of unconventional warfare definition
This leads to the final question ldquowhat is the role of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense in the context of the Global War on Terrorrdquo Regardless of how
ldquotransnationalrdquo these movements are the sovereignty of the nation-states is still going to
constrain US and coalition operations Because of this there are really three situations
that unconventional warfare will be used for
1 Operations against Rogue Hostile Regimes or State Sponsors of Terrorism--a
proven operational concept having been used successfully twice since 11 September in
Afghanistan and Iraq These operations will either be the decisive or shaping operation
depending on the political sensitivity of the target country
156
2 Operations against what will be referred to in this study as al Qarsquoida states (AQ
States) in which al Qarsquoida is able to overthrow one or more of the regimes within the
boundary of the 7th century caliphate Unconventional warfare would be used to
overthrow these regimes
3 Operations in failed states when there is no effective government but an
element within the population such as a tribe or ethnic group is the State for all intents
and purposes In this case unconventional warfare will be used to overthrow this State
In each one of these cases as soon as the unconventional warfare or conventional
operations have been successful then they will shift to foreign internal defense in the
same way Afghanistan and Iraq transitioned to foreign internal defense Therefore
regardless of the operation the end state will likely include foreign internal defense
conducted once a friendly government is established
For this very reason foreign internal defense will continue to play a significant
role in US engagement strategies In a flashback to the past foreign internal defense will
be conducted for three reasons as well
1 Primarily to protect friendly states threatened by insurgency especially al
Qarsquoida sponsored insurgency such as the Sunni insurgency in Iraq supported by al
Qarsquoida affiliated Abu Musab Zarqawi or state-sponsored insurgency such as the Shirsquoa
insurgency supported by Iran
2 Foreign internal defense during peacetime engagement under the Theater
Security Cooperation Plan or during postconflict mission after the transition from
unconventional warfare and or conventional operations
157
3 To gain control of ungoverned spaces by supporting a weak government or
some portion of the population that is in these areas and will support US and coalition
efforts such as the Hmong tribesmen in Laos to regain control of these areas In extreme
cases international intervention could be used such as United Nations or other
internationally recognized coalitions or alliances to gain control establish a secure
environment and establish a government able to gain and maintain control
Therefore unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense will be the
primary missions of Special Forces in the future Figure 9 provides the actual framework
for Special Forces role within the Global War on Terror The figure shows clearly the
types of operations that will be conducted depending on the situation Analysis of the US
Special Operations Command threat model and the types of operations required for each
threats pictured in figure 10 also supports the above conclusions
Finally figure 9 also shows the relationship between operational preparation of
the environment and other missions Operational preparation of the environment is not
unconventional warfare but applies to every Special Forces missions Figure 9 shows
operational preparation of the environment as the precursor to different types of
operations Because this mission has its own tasks associated with it this may be the
operation that emerges as a new operational concept Another concept shown on the map
is counterinfrastructure instead of counterterrorism to signify that this mission can be
carried out against a regimersquos infrastructure or the infrastructure of an insurgent group
This would also be a more proactive mission versus the current counterterrorism
operations and could easily use ldquosurrogatesrdquo or indigenous forces to conduct these
operations yet would not be unconventional warfare
158
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort
159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model Source United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 4 available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedu les3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006 Note Missions and arrows were added by the author and are not found in any US Special Operations Command publication
Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency
For those that argue that unconventional warfare can be used to defea t an
insurgency David Galula provides some interesting insights First he explains wh y
insurgent warfare does not work for the counterinsurgent
Insurgency warfare is specifically designed to allow the camp afflicted with congenital weakness to acquire strength progressively while fighting The counterinsurgent is endowed with congenital strength for him to adopt the insurgentrsquos warfare would be the same as for a giant to try to fit into dwarfrsquos clothing317
317David Galula Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice (St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005) 73
160
David Galula also explains that if the counterinsurgent could operate as a guerrilla he
would have to have the support of the population which in turn means that the actual
insurgents do not have the support Therefore if the insurgent did not have the support of
the populous in the first place then there would be no need for the counterinsurgent to
operate in these areas However he does not discount the use of commando-style
operations in limited forms As he notes ldquoThey cannot however represent the main form
of the counterinsurgentrsquos warfarerdquo318
Another applicable comment from David Galula has to do with the possibility for
the counterinsurgent ldquoto organize a clandestine force able to defeat the insurgent on his
own termsrdquo the essence of the Global Unconventional Warfare concept As David Galula
explains
Clandestinity [sic] seems to be another of those obligations-turned-into-assets of the insurgent How could the counterinsurgent whose strength derives precisely from his open physical assets build up a clandestine force except as minor and secondary adjunct Furthermore room for clandestine organizations is very limited in revolutionary war Experience shows that no rival--not to speak of hostile--clandestine movements can coexist for long319
Summary
This chapter answered the secondary questions showing that unconventional
warfare is the support to insurgency while foreign internal defense is the support given to
a government to help that government defeat subversion lawlessness and insurgency
The description and subsequent models of the transition from unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense help to clarify the relationship between these two operations The
318Ibid
319Ibid
161
final question on the role of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
respect to non-state actor determined that they are applicable as individual operations
depending on the enemy threat in each country but that global unconventional warfare is
a misnomer This chapter sets the stage to answer the primary question in chapter 5
162
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This study set out to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as currently defined are still applicable to contemporary and future Special
Forces operations Without a doubt the most confusing aspect of this fifty-year old
debate is the definition of unconventional warfare
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion320
Although some would argue that the broad statement provides leeway in its
application what has actually happened is that in providing leeway Special Forces have
historically misunderstood the most basic element of the definition--support to
insurgency Much of the blame for this confusion is evident in the historical analysis
presented in chapter 3--Special Forces leaders were trying to provide a niche mission that
would assure Special Forcesrsquo relevance throughout the turbulent periods after Vietnam
and with the end of the Cold War
However the attempts to make unconventional warfare an overarching term and
the birth of the idea that unconventional warfare is any operation conducted by with and
through an indigenous force has had a grave impact on the forcesrsquo understanding of
unconventional warfare With the rise of the non-state actor there is new emphasis to
320JP 1-02
163
adapt unconventional warfare to this new threat regardless if it is the correct mission or
not The bottom line with respect to the current definition of unconventional warfare is
that taken in the context of unconventional warfare history and current doctrine it is
applicable to todayrsquos contemporary environment as evidenced by operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq but by itself could be and is inadvertently applied to missions it
was never intended As the analysis shows in chapter 4 unconventional warfare has a
significant place in future Special Forcesrsquo operations when regime removal is necessary
as in the cases of rogue or hostile regimes (Saddam Husseinrsquos regime) regimes that
support terrorist or global insurgent organization (Taliban) and finally if al Qarsquoida
successfully seizes power in a country within the caliphate In each of these cases
unconventional warfare will be a weapon of choice as either the decisive operation or as a
shaping operation for other elements of national power
As for foreign internal defense the definition is clear and based on the analysis of
the history of foreign internal defense it will without a doubt continue to be applicable
to future Special Forcesrsquo operations This is especially true in operations to overthrow
regimes through conventional operations and or unconventional warfare operations
which will rollover to foreign internal defense The clarity of the definition leaves little
room for misunderstanding ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a
government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo321 The foreign internal
defense definition provides one significant aspect that the unconventional warfare
definition does not--it provides the conditions that are to be met by the operations ldquoto free
321Ibid
164
and protect a society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo which leaves little
doubt of the purpose of these operations from peacetime engagement to high-intensity
and high-threat environments like Vietnam and Iraq The foreign internal defense
doctrine defines three types of support--indirect direct and combat--which provides
further clarity In todayrsquos environment and the future the key to success against the
global insurgency will be through foreign internal defense to enable US partner nations to
do exactly what the definition says protect themselves from ldquosubversion lawlessness and
insurgencyrdquo all three ingredients necessary to deny al Qarsquoida and its associated
movement sanctuary support freedom of movement and access to weapons of mass
destruction
Special Forces is the only branch specifically trained and ready to conduct these
operations Although the conventional military is doing its best to develop military
training teams they will never have the training experience and cultural awareness in
these types of operations that Special Forces bring to the table Special Forces is standing
in the door of a new paradigm shift The branch will either stay its current course
continually looking for relevancy or it can seize the opportunity and take its place as a
decisive or shaping force able to conduct unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as a key economy of force component of the Joint Forces range of military
operations
Recommendations
First unconventional warfare should be defined as operations by a state or non-
state actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or an
165
occupying power in another country322 In this definition insurgency would an inclusive
term for resistance or partisan operations as well Like foreign internal defense there
would be three types of support or operational approach indirect direct and combat the
application of which would depend on the political and security environments323 This
would make the definition of unconventional warfare as clear as the current definition of
foreign internal defense and would finally end the confusion by providing a purpose
Also like the foreign internal defense definition the new unconventional warfare
definition would be universal In other words external support could be provided by Iran
Syria China Cuba North Korea and even Al Qarsquoida
With regards to the three types of support or operational approach as used
throughout this study each would be used depending on the environment whether hostile
or denied Indirect support would be used when the environment is denied The indirect
approach would focus on the insurgencyrsquos self-sufficiency by indirectly providing lethal
and nonlethal aid money and training through a third party or in the case of training in
a third party country or in the US as was done with the Tibetans Direct support would
include all aspects of support but would put Special Forces in sanctuary or liberated
areas within the vicinity of the conflict but not in direct contact with the hostile
governmentrsquos forces as was the case with the Contras However during this type of
322Jones Although part of the recommended definition in the above mentioned article upon further research the author has dropped ldquoconstitutedrdquo from the definition since there are fewer ldquoconstitutedrdquo or even governments as historically defined in the likely hotspots of today Instead more and more governments are like the Taliban--not a government in the true sense of the word but strong enough to seize and maintain power as the ldquostaterdquo versus some minority or weaker element the ldquocounter-staterdquo such as the Northern Alliance
323Grdovic
166
support there could be risk to Special Forces personnel if the hostile government
launched punitive strikes or raids into these areas to disrupt or destroy the insurgents
Finally if the operational approach is combat support than Special Forces would conduct
all of the supporting tasks mentioned above and would participate in combat operations
as advisors to the insurgency and coordinate other US assets such as close air support
Second the post-11 September unconventional warfare operations also validated
the seven-phase concept of US sponsored insurgency However the final phase
demobilization would be better served if called transition Thus Special Forces would
begin to shape the postconflict environment as combat operations ended to ensure success
in the stability phase by identifying potential threats providing security and transitioning
the insurgents into local militia units that would disrupt any attempts by former regime
elements to establish an insurgent infrastructure The unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense transition point should also be captured within unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine
Third ensure a broader understanding of unconventional warfare throughout the
military and interagency by describing unconventional warfare in detail in core joint and
service doctrinal manuals Currently for example unconventional warfare is not
mentioned in the 3-0 family of capstone Joint publications or the Armyrsquos field manual on
operational doctrine Instead support to insurgency with no reference to unconventional
warfare is described in single paragraph under stability operations The success of
unconventional warfare in Afghanistan demonstrated that SOF can perform economy of
force operations by supporting insurgencies the Northern Alliance in this case and that
these combined forces can conduct decisive offensive operations SOFrsquos unconventional
167
warfare efforts in Northern Iraq advising the Kurds also validated the concept of using
insurgents to conduct shaping operations in support of conventional forces
Fourth the Global Unconventional Warfare campaign needs to be dropped in
favor of a better term that captures the counterinsurgency nature of this war possibly
global counterinsurgency counter global insurgency global internal defense or global
counter irregular warfare To do this the problem global insurgency must first be
defined A recommended definition is operations by one or more networked non-state
entities with the goal of overthrowing or dramatically changing the global status quo or
disrupting globalization The possible definition for the counter to this would be similar
to the foreign internal defense definition but on a grand-strategy scale
A broad range of direct and indirect interagency coalition special operations and conventional military efforts to defeat global insurgency subversion and lawlessness by denying sanctuary freedom of movement external support mechanisms mass popular support access to weapons of mass destruction psychological and propaganda effects operational intelligence and armed offensive capabilities
Under this definition a single overarching term may not be needed but it would be the
combined ldquoeffectsrdquo of operations across the globe For Special Forces this would include
unconventional warfare foreign internal defense operational preparation of the
battlefield direct action counterterrorism counterproliferation special reconnaissance
and a new term counterinfrastructure Counterinfrastructure would entail destroying
defeating disrupting or capturing hostile regime non-state actor or insurgent
infrastructure This is a more proactive type of operation than counterterrorism which is
generally reactive in nature This operational term describes the current global
interdiction of al Qarsquoida and associated movements as well as the operation taken to
168
capture former regime elements and insurgent leaders in Iraq This operation would also
include the use of surrogates
Fifth operational preparation of the environment needs to be added to the core
special operations forces core mission or more correctly operations This operation is
not unconventional warfare but an operation in and of itself that can set the conditions
for the execution of the other core tasks By making it a stand-alone mission specific
doctrine could be published for operational preparation of the environment instead of
capturing this doctrine in other core mission doctrine which adds to the confusion
Sixth if unconventional warfare becomes an overarching term for operations by
with and through indigenous or surrogate forces then the confusion over unconventional
warfare will continue A possible solution would be to define each of the Special Forces
missions separately under this umbrella term The above recommended unconventional
warfare definition would instead be used to define a new term such as support to
insurgency or STI The big three ldquoby with and throughrdquo missions would be support to
insurgency operational preparation of the environment and foreign internal defense
However the other operational terms counter-proliferation counterterrorism counter-
infrastructure direct action and special reconnaissance could also be conducted by
through and with indigenous and surrogate forces and use the same three operational
approaches as outlined for unconventional warfare When used this way they could also
fall under this overarching unconventional warfare term324
324Jones On further analysis of this problem this is a better solution than the one outlined in the Why Words Matter paper which suggested support to insurgency and operations against non-state actors would fall under this overarching term Based on the US Special Operations Command 2006 posture statement the use of surrogates and
169
Seventh this study has also highlighted a deficiency in the joint doctrinersquos
definition of insurgency The current joint definition for insurgency does not address
resistance or partisan operations against an occupier reading ldquoan organized movement
aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo325 Instead of this definition a new recommended definition for insurgency is
ldquoan organized movement or resistance aimed at the overthrow of a constituted
government or removal of an occupying power through the use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo
Finally one of the byproducts of this study was the identification of a trend which
tries to leverage ldquounconventional warfare skillsrdquo to separate Special Forces from the rest
of the special operations community326 To some these are the skills that make up the
warrior-diplomat capability of Special Forces However Special Forces soldiers use these
same skills regardless of the mission and this is what sets Special Forces apart If Special
Forces are truly ldquospecialrdquo compared to the rest of the special operations community it is
because of the nature of their training and mindset that have not been readily transferable
to other special operation forces Therefore these unconventional warfare skills are
actually Special Forces skills and should be captured in this manner to not only leverage
indigenous forces during other types of operations must be clarified based on the noted fact that direct action and counterterrorism were not listed as one of the operational missions of Special Operation Forces having been rolled up under unconventional warfare
325JP 3-0 V-13
326Rothstein 102
170
their uniqueness but also to reduce the confusion between unconventional warfare the
operation and a set of skills
Areas for Further Research
During the research of this project numerous other areas of research came to light
that warrant further study
First was the Special Forces direct action and intelligence collection focus the
most efficient use of these high-demand and low-density assets or could they have been
employed as trainers and advisors to produce a larger positive effect on the growth and
success of the Iraqi and Afghani security forces while simultaneously reducing the
insurgency
Second would a large-scale employment of Special Forces detachments be a
better long-term choice for training and advising than the conventional military training
team concept This is based on the premise that US domestic support for the prolonged
operations in Iraq is a direct reflection of continued conventional force deployments
Therefore these deployments could be shortened by using Special Forces to conduct
economy of force operations and allowing the conventional military to withdraw
Third conduct a detailed study of counterinfrastructure operations This would
include not only unilateral US efforts but host-nation partner and surrogate operations
and operations using former elements that have been ldquoturnedrdquo in what are called ldquopseudoshy
operationsrdquo
Last could a Special Forces deployable task force and the related command and
control structure and training capacity be able to develop a host nation military and
internal security forces and systems filling the role of the Multi-National Security 171
Transition Command ndashIraq This idea comes from the doctrinal based premise that an
operational detachment alpha can train equip and employ an indigenous battalion
Therefore based on a logical progression of capabilities a Special Forces company also
known as an operational detachment bravo should be able to train and advise an
indigenous brigade a Special Forces battalion an operational detachment charlie should
be capable of training and advising an indigenous division a Special Forces Group then
would be able to train and advise an indigenous Corps and a deployable Special Forces
task force headquarters such as a Joint Forces Special Operations Component
commander of appropriate general officer rank and his staff would be able to train and
advise an indigenous Army This final level would be capable and prepared to do exactly
what the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq has done but instead of
being an ad hoc organization it would be an inherent Special Forces capability and
responsibility
172
GLOSSARY
Antiterrorism Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and propert to terrorist acts to include limited response and containment by local military forces Also called AT (JP 1-02)
Biometrics The measuring of physical human features to ensure that a person once registered can be identified later even if his or her identity documents or facial characteristics change(US Army Battle Command Battle Lab) Campaign Plan A plan for a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space (JP 1-02)
Civil Administration An administration established by a foreign government in (1) friendly territory under an agreement with the government of the area concerned to exercise certain authority normally the function of the local government or (2) hostile territory occupied by United States forces where a foreign government exercises executive legislative and judicial authority until an indigenous civil government can be established Also called CA administration (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Designated Active and Reserve component forces and units organized trained and equipped specifically to conduct civil affairs activities and to support civil-military operations Also called CA (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Activities Activities performed or supported by civil affairs that (1) enhance the relationship between military forces and civil authorities in areas where military forces are present and (2) involve application of civil affairs functional specialty skills in areas normally the responsibility
Civil-Military Operations The activities of a commander that establish maintain influence or exploit relations between military forces governmental and nongovernmental civilian organizations and authorities and the civilian populace in a friendly neutral or hostile operational area in order to facilitate military operations to consolidate and achieve operational US objectives Civil-military operations may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of the local regional or national government These activities may occur prior to during or subsequent to other military actions They may also occur if directed in the absence of other military operations Civil military operations may be performed by designated civil affairs by other military forces or by a combination of civil affairs and other forces Also called CMO (JP 1-02)
Combatant Command A unified or specified command with a broad continuing mission under a single commander established and so designated by the President through the Secretary of Defense and with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of
173
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Combatant commands typically have geographic or functional responsibilities (JP 1-02)
Combatant Commander A commander of one of the unified or specified combatant commands established by the President (JP 1-02)
Combatting Terrorism Actions including antiterrorism (defensive measures taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist acts) and counterterrorism (offensive measures taken to prevent deter and respond to terrorism) taken to oppose terrorism throughout the entire threat spectrum Also called CBT (JP 1-02)
Conventional Forces (1) Those forces capable of conducting operations using nonnuclearweapons (2) Those forces other than designated special operations forces (JP 1-02)
Counterdrug Those active measures taken to detect monitor and counter the productiontrafficking and use of illegal drugs Also called CD (JP 1-02)
Counterinsurgency Those military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency Also called COIN (FM 1-02 1-47)
Counterintelligence Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage other intelligence activities sabotage or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof foreign organizations or foreign persons or international terrorists activities Also called CI (JP 1-02)
Counterterrorism Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent deter preempt and respond to terrorism Also called CT (JP 1-02)
Country Team The senior in-country US coordinating and supervising body headed by the chief of the US diplomatic mission and composed of the senior member of each represented US department or agency as desired by the chief of the US diplomatic mission (JP 1-02)
Direct Action Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions by special operations forces or special operations-capable units to seize destroy capture recover or inflict damage on designated personnel or material (FM 1-02 1-60)
Foreign Internal Defense Participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency Also called FID (JP 1-02)
Host Nation A nation that receives the forces andor supplies of allied nations coalition partners andor NATO organizations
174
Hostile Environment Operational environment in which hostile forces have control as well as the intent and capability to effectively oppose or react to the operations a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Indigenous Native originating in or intrinsic to an area or region (FM 3-0520)
Insurgency An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Interagency Coordination Within the context of Department of Defense involvement the coordination that occurs between elements of Department of Defense andengaged US Government agencies nongovernmental organizations and regional and international organizations for the purpose of accomplishing an objective (JP 1-02)
Internal Defense And Development The full range of measures taken by a nation to promote its growth and to protect itself from subversion lawlessness and insurgency It focuses on building viable institutions (political economic social and military) that respond to the needs of society Also called IDAD (JP 1-02)
Joint Task Force A joint force that is constituted and so designated by the Secretary of Defense a combatant commander a subordinate unified command commander or an existing joint task force commander Also called JTF (JP 1-02)
Military Assistance Advisory Group A joint Service group normally under the military command of a commander of a unified command and representing the Secretary of Defense which primarily administers the US military assistance
Military Civic Action The use of preponderantly indigenous military forces on projects useful to the local population at all levels in such fields as education training public works agriculture transportation communications health sanitation and others contributing to economic and social development which would also serve to improve the standing of the military forces with the population (US forces may at times advise or engage in military civic actions in overseas areas) (JP 1-02)
Military Support to Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Department of Defense activities that support US Government plans for stabilization security reconstruction and transition operations which lead to sustainable peace while advancing US interests (DoDD 300005)
Paramilitary Forces Forces or groups distinct from the regular armed forces of any country but resembling them in organization equipment training or mission (JP 1-02)
Permissive Environment Operational environment in which host country military and law enforcement agencies have control as well as the intent and capability to
175
assist operations that a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Special Operations Operations conducted by specially organized trained and equipped military and paramilitary forces to achieve military political economic or informational objectives by unconventional military means in hostile denied or politically sensitive areas (FM 1-02 1-173)
Special Operations Forces Those Active and Reserve Component forces of the Military Services designated by the Secretary of Defense and specifically organized trained and equipped to conduct and support special operations Also called SOF (JP 1-02)
Special Reconnaissance Reconnaissance and surveillance actions conducted by special operations forces to obtain or verify by visual observation or other collection methods information concerning the capabilities intentions and activities of an actual or potential enemy or to secure data concerning the meteorological hydrographic or geographic characteristics of a particular area (FM 1-02 1-174)
Stability Operations Operations that promote and protect US national interests by influencing the threat political and information dimensions of the operational environment through a combination of peacetime development cooperative activities and coercive actions in response to a crisis (FM 1-02 1-175)
Stability Operations Military and civilian activities conducted across the spectrum from peace to conflict to establish or maintain order in States and regions (DoDD 300005)
Subversion Action designed to undermine the military economic psychological or political strength or morale of a regime See also unconventional warfare (JP 1shy02)
Support to Counterinsurgency Support provided to a government in the military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions it undertakes to defeat insurgency (JP 1-02)
Support to Insurgency Support provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Surrogate someone who takes the place of or acts for another a substitute (FM 3-0520)
Terrorism The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political religious or ideological (JP 1-02)
176
Transition Point Authorrsquos definition for the point of phase shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense operations or conventionally a shift from conflict to postconflict
Uncertain Environment Operational environment in which host government forces whether opposed to or receptive to operations that a unit intends to conduct do not have totally effective control of the territory and population in the intended operational area (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Unconventional Warfare A broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes but is not limited to guerrilla warfare subversion sabotage intelligence activities and unconventional assisted recovery Also called UW (JP 1-02)
177
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams Thomas K Military Doctrine and the Organization Culture of the United States Army Ann Arbor University Microfilms 1990
________ US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998
Ancker III Clinton J Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing Fort Leavenworth KS Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005
Ancker III Clinton J and Michael D Burke ldquoDoctrine for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Military Review (July-August 2003) Available from httpwwwfindarticles comparticles mi_m0PBZis_4_83ai_109268858 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004)
Andrade Dale and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
Asprey Robert B War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994
Ayers Cynthia E ldquoIraqi Resistance to Freeedom A Frommian Perspectiverdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 68-84
Baer Robert See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001
Bailey Cecil E ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
Bank Aaron USA Colonel Retired From OSS to Green Berets New York Pocket Books 1986
Barker Geoffrey T A Concise History of US Army Special Operations Forces Fayetteville NC Anglo-American Publishing Company 1988
Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet Accessed on 3 May 2006
Bernhard Michael ldquoThe Lessons of a Successful Military Occupationrdquo Strategic Insight (May 2003)
Biddle Stephen ldquoSpecial Forces and the Future of Warfare Will SOF Predominate in 2020rdquo US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute 2004
178
Book Elizabeth ldquoRole of Special Ops Evolves Over Timerdquo National Defense Magazine February 2002 Available from httpwwwnationaldefensemagazineorgarticle cfmId=719 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004
Boyatt Mark D Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
Boykin William G ldquoVigilant Warrior 2002 War Game Demonstrates ARSOFrsquos Value to the Objective Forcerdquo Special Warfare (September 2001) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442223 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
________ Major General ldquoFrom the Commandantrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 1
Briscoe C H Dr ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
Brook Robin Sir ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992
Brown Frederic J Lieutenant General Retired ldquoAmericarsquos Army Expeditionary and Enduring-Foreign and Domesticrdquo Military Review (November-December 2003) Available from httpwwwarmymilprof_writingvolumesvolume2february_ 20042_04_4_pfhtml Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Cassidy Robert M Major ldquo41 (sic) Why Great Powers Fight Small Wars Badlyrdquo Military Review (September-October 2002 English Edition) Available from httpwwwcgscarmymilmilrevenglishSepOct02cassidyasp Internet Accessed on 31 October 2003
Cavallora Gina ldquoIraqis get the basics Drill sergeants deploy to the war zonerdquo The Army Times (June 2004) 22
CBS News ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo 15 September 2004 Available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet Accessed on 24 April 2006
Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd
Charters David and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984
179
Chiarelli Peter W Major General and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
Cline Lawrence E ldquoThe New Constabularies Planning US Military Stabilization Missionsrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 14 no 3 (Autumn 2003) 158-184
Coffey Ross Major ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
Collins John M ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 22-27
Corum James S and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003
Cox Matthew ldquorsquoThey are so undisciplinedrsquo Iraqi forces learn ropes of battle but curve is steeprdquo The Army Times 27 (September 2004) 8
Crawley Vince and Nicole Gaudiano ldquoAbu Ghraib Investigator 4th Star lsquoUnlikelyrsquo For Sanchez-CIA lsquoGhost Detaineesrsquo Raise Lawmakersrsquo Irerdquo The Army Times 20 (September 2004) 12
Crerar J H Colonel Retired US Army ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37-39
Daugherty William J Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004
Defend America News ldquoIraq Time Linerdquo Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milIraqTimeLinehtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Department of Defense 2003-2004 SOF Posture Statement Special OperationsLow-Intensity Conflict Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpolicysolic 2003_2004_SOF_Posture_Statementpdf Internet Accessed on 10 April 2004
________ Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005 Available from httpwwwdticmil futurejointwarfareconceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet Accessed on 17 February 2006
________ Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 300005 Military Support for Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations Washington DC GPO 2005
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2004 A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Available from httpwwwoftosdmil
180
librarylibrary_filesdocument_377_National20Military20Strategy201320 May2004pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
________ Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet Accessed on 8 February 2006
________ Stability Operations Joint Operating Concept September 2004 Available from httpwwwdticmiljointvisionfinalstab_jocdoc Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004)
Department of the Army and the Department of the US Air Force Field Manual 100shy20Air Force Pamphlet 3-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflicts Washington DC GPO 1990
Department of the Army Field Manual 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations Forces Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 100-5 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0520 (FM 31-20) Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 3-07 (FM 100-20) Stability Operations and Support Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 20 April 1990
________ Field Manual 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques Washington DC GPO 1971
________ Field Manual 31-20-3 Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces Washington DC GPO 1989
________ Field Manual 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 1961
________ Field Manual 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla Warfare Washington DC GPO 1951
181
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1963
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1969
________ Field Manual 90-8 Counterguerrilla Operations Washington DC GPO 1986
________ The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower-Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section I Army Strategic Planning Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section II Army Planning Priorities Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
Department of the Navy Small Wars Draft January 2004 Available from httpwww smallwarsquanticousmcmilSWMSmall20Wars20Draft20Web202pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005
Devotie Michael W Sergeant First Class ldquoUnconventional Warfare A Viable Option for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1997) 30-32
Diamond Larry ldquoWhat Went Wrong in Iraqrdquo Foreign Affairs 83 no 5 (September October 2004) 34-56
Dickson Keith D Dr ldquoThe New Asymmetry Unconventional Warfare and Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Fall 2001) 14-19
Dobbins James ldquoAfghanistanrsquos Faltering Reconstructionrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2002 Available from httprandorgcommentary091202NYThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoNation-building The Inescapable Responsibility of the Worldrsquos Only Superpowerrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2003 Available from httprandorg publicationsrandreviewissuessummer2003nation1html Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoSecuring the Peace Will Require Finesserdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary062704CRhtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
182
Dobbins James John G McGinn Keith Crane Seth G Jones Rollie Lal Andrew Rathmell Rachel Swagner and Anga Timilsina Americarsquos Role in Nation-Building From Germany to Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND 2003
Donahoe Patrick J Lt Col ldquoPreparing Leaders for Nationbuildingrdquo Military Review (May-June 2004) 24-26
Fastabend David Brigadier General ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo PowerPoint presentation slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquoprepared for Joint Forces Command TRADOC 2004
Federal News Service ldquoBriefing on Coalition Post-war Reconstruction and Stabilization Effortsrdquo (transcript) Washington DC Federal News Service Inc 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmiltranscripts2003tr20030612shy0269html Internet Accessed on 4 October 2004
Field Kimberly C and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Fischer Joseph R ldquoCut from a Different Cloth The Origins of US Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (April 1995) 29-39
Fishel John T ldquoLittle Wars Small Wars LIC OOTW The GAP and Things That Go Bump in the Nightrdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 372-398
Flavin William ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 95-112 Available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Flournoy Michegravele Interagency Strategy and Planning for Post-Conflict Reconstruction Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) March 2002 Available from httpwwwcsis orgisppcrstrategypdf Internet Accessed on 10 October 2004
Foot M R D The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984
Franks Tommy General with Malcolm McConnell American Soldier General Tommy Franks Commander in Chief United States Central Command New York Harper-Collins Publishers Inc 2004
Frizzell Art ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgoverview html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Galula David Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005
183
Garamone Jim ldquoUS Army Trains Free Iraqi Forces in Hungaryrdquo American Forces Press Service 23 February 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnews Feb2003 n022420003_200302243html Internet Accessed on 24 September 2004
Gilmore Gerry J ldquoDespite Challenges Iraqi Forces lsquoIn the Fightrsquordquo DefenseLINK News 29 September 2004 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnewsSep 2004n09292004_2004092910html Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo Available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 Available from httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraray congress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2005
Godson Roy Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004
Grau Lester W Lt Col (ret) ldquoSomething Old Something New Guerrillas Terrorists and Intelligence Analysisrdquo Military Review (July-August 2004) 42-49
________ Multiple conversations on topic with the author September 2003 to October 2004 Fort Bragg NC
________ ldquoFOB 103 Operations in Northern Iraqrdquo Slide presentation Fort Bragg NC 28 August 2003
________ (Now Lieutenant Colonel) Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Grossman Elaine M ldquoAdvisers to Rumsfeld DOD Canrsquot Sustain Current Stability Operationsrdquo Inside The Pentagon Inside Washington Publishers 23 September 2004 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetgrossman advisers_to_rumsfeldhtm Internet Accessed on 9 October 2004
Halstead Brian D CW2 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Questions Concerns and Proposalsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 29-31
Hamblet John ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg chinahtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
184
Harclerode Peter Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden London Cassell and Company 2001
Harned Glenn M Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
Heckler Jeremy Sgt ldquoIraqis Denounce Barsquoath Party en masserdquo Iraqi Destiny 1 no 57 (January 2004) 2 5
Herd Walter Colonel ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service 13 June 2005 Available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Hoffman Bruce ldquoLessons from the Past for Iraqrsquos Futurerdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary072304SDUThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
Hoffman Bruce Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND National Security Research Division 2004
Hogan David W Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II Washington DC Department of the Army 1992
Holms Richard L ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 Available from httpwwwodci govcsistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet Accessed on 18 June 2005
Horton Lynn Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 Athens GA Ohio University 1998
Hughes Patrick M ldquoGlobal Threats and Challenges The Decades Ahead Prepared Statement before the Senate Armed Services Committeerdquo 2 February 1999 Washington DC Available from wwwdefenselinkmilspeeches1999 s19990202-hugheshtml Internet Accessed on 30 August 2003
Irvin Will Lt Col (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 New York NY PublicAffairs 2005
Ivosevic Michael J CW3 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Refining the Definitionrdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1999) 39
Jaffe Greg ldquoOn Ground in Iraq Capt Ayers Writes His Own Playbook Thrust Into New Kind of War Junior Officers Become Armyrsquos Leading Experts Risky Deal with Village Sheikrdquo Wall Street Journal 22 September 2004 1-6
Jalali Ali A ldquoRebuilding Afghanistanrsquos National Armyrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2002) 72-86
185
Joes Anthony James America and Guerrilla Warfare Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000
John F Kennedy Special Warfare Training Center Around the Campfire A Discussion The War on Terror Cody WY Government Publications January 2004
Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Washington DC GPO 2001 (as amended through 9 June 2004) Available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet Accessed on 16 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination Washington DC GPO 23 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 10 September 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Doctrine for Joint Special Operations Washington GPO 2003
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD Washington DC GPO 12 April 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism Washington DC GPO 1 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs 2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet Accessed on 6 February 2006
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategy Chapter 2 The Strategic Environment-shyOpportunities and Challenges Available from wwwdticmiljcsnmsstrategihtm Internet Accessed on 3 October 2004
Joint Special Operations Insights Issues and Lessons (SIPRNET) Norfolk VA (classified website used only for reference ndash no classified information released)
Jones D Major ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo 5 February 2005 Scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
Jones Frank L ldquoArmy SOF in Afghanistan Learning the Right Lessonsrdquo Joint Force Quarterly (Winter 2002-03) 16-22
186
Jones Gary M Colonel and Major Christopher Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 4-15
Kaplan Robert D Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground New York NY Random House 2005
Kem Jack D Dr Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd
Kershner Michael R Colonel ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84-86
________ ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 2-7
Kiper Richard L Dr ldquoAn Army For Afghanistan The 1st Battalion 3rd SF Group and the Afghan Armyrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) 42-43
Kruger Kimbra L ldquoUS Military Intervention in Third World Conflict The Need for Integration of Total War and LIC Doctrinerdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 399-428
Lambert Geoffrey C Major General ldquoMajor Combat and Restoration Operations A Discussionrdquo Special Warfare (February 2004) 2-5
________ ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20-27
Language Technology Office DCD ldquoBiometrics Automated Toolset (BAT)rdquo (Briefing Slides) US Army Battle Command Battle Lab Huachuca March 2004
Lauber Mark LTC Retired Multiple discussions with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
Leever Gretha Municipal Affairs Officer United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo Multiple conversations with the author on the UNrsquos capacity to conduct postconflict operations Kosovo November 2001 to January 2002
Lewis S J Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991
Lindsay Franklin A Basic Doctrine for the Conduct of Unconventional Warfare McKinsey and Company Inc 1961
187
Linnington Abigail T Captain Unconventional Warfare as a Strategic Foreign Policy Tool The Clinton Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan Thesis The Fletcher School (Tufts University) 2004
Lomperis Timothy J From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996
Magni Frank Sgt ldquoAfghan Army Maneuvers With Task Force Broncordquo Defend America News 13 August 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesaug2004a081304ahtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Malcom Ben S Colonel Retired and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996
Maloney Sean M ldquoAfghanistan From Here to Eternityrdquo Parameters (Spring 2004) 4shy15
Manwaring Max G and John T Fishel ldquoInsurgency and Counter-Insurgency Toward a New Analytical Approachrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 3 no 3 (Winter 1992) 272-310
Marquis Susan L Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces Washington DC The Brookings Institute 1997
Marr Phebe ldquoIraq lsquoThe Day Afterrsquo Internal Dynamics in Post-Saddam Iraqrdquo Naval War College Review I VI no 1 (Winter 2003) Available from httpwwwnewnavy milpressReview2003winterpdfsart1-w03pdf Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
Materazzi Albert ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg italyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Maurer Kevin ldquoIraqis Learn To Take Up Their Own Defenserdquo Fayetteville Online 24 February 2004 Available from httpwwwfayettevilleobservercomprinter phpStory-6193578 Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
McClintock Michael Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 2002 Available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet Accessed on 21 February 2006
McCollaum Peter Major Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
McCormick Gordon Dr US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division Presentation at the Unconventional Warfare
188
Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC
McMillan Joseph ldquoBuilding an Iraqi Defense Forcerdquo Strategic Forum no 198 (June 2003) 1-7
McRaven William H SPEC OPS Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare Theory and Practice Navato CA Presidio Press 1996
Meigs Montgomery C ldquoUnorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) 4-18
Messing Major and William Shingleton National Defense Council Foundation World Conflict List 1999 Available from wwwndeforgConflict_ListWorld99html Internet Accessed on 20 February 2004
Metzgar Major Greg E ldquoUnconventional Warfare Definitions from 1950 to the Presentrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 18-23
Miksche F O Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements London Faber and Faber Limited
Miller Dean J Tech Sgt ldquoUS Teaches Georgians Command Control Skillsrdquo Defend America News 14 July 2002 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesjun2002a061402ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Miller Russell Behind the Lines The Oral History of Special Operations in World War II New York NY New American Library 2002
Morris Niger ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946rdquo BBC History Available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwosoe_printhtml Internet Accessed on 1 December 2005
Műller Kurt E ldquoToward a Concept of Strategic Civil Affairsrdquo Parameters (Winter 1998) 80-98
Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq MNSTC-I et al Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommil Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
Naylor Sean D ldquorsquoPaying the pricersquo for pulling out Commanders see a tough fight to retake Fallujahrdquo The Army Times 4 October 2004 10
Newman Dean S Major ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo Available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
189
ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
OrsquoHanlon Michael E ldquoA Flawed Masterpiece (Afghanistan Conflict 2001-)rdquo Foreign Affairs 81 no 3 (May-June 2002) 1-7
Oakley Robert B and TX Hammes ldquoSecuring Afghanistan Entering a Make-or Break Phaserdquo Strategic Forum no 205 (March 2004) 1-6
Paddock Alfred H Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Washington DC National Defense University 1982
Paddock Jr Alfred H US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Kansas University Press 2002
Prados John Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf Chicago Elephant Paperbacks 1986
Prusher Ilene R ldquoNews outlets flood Kirkuk-and satellite dish sales soar-as Husseinrsquos era of censorship crumblesrdquo Christian Science Monitor 29 April 2003 Available from httpwww csmonitorcom20030429p06s01-woiqhtml Internet Accessed on 30 October 2004
Pullen Randy Col ldquoAfghan National Army Recruiting Extends to Northeastrdquo Defense LINK News 24 September 2004 Available from httpwww defenselinkmil newsSep2004n09242004_2004092402html Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
________ ldquoNew Afghan Soldiers Pledge to Serve a Nationrdquo Defend America News 29 July 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamericamilarticlesjul2004 a072904ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Reed James W ldquoShould Deterrence Fail War Termination in Campaign Planningrdquo Parameters (Summer 1993) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmymiluaswc parameters1993reedhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Robinson Linda Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces New York NY Public Affairs 2004
________ ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 Available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Rothstein Hy S Afghanistan and the Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006
190
Salmoni Barak A ldquoIraq Now Choosing Sovereignty or Democracyrdquo Strategic Insights 3 no 8 (August 2004)
Sandler Stanley ldquoArmy Psywarriors A History of US Army Psychological Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1992) 18-25
Sandler Stanley ldquoSeal the Victory A History of US Army Civil Affairsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 1991) 38-41
Schadlow Nadia ldquoWar and the Art of Governancerdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 85-94
Schoomaker Peter J (GEN CINC US Special Operations Command) ldquoSpecial Operations Forces The Way Aheadrdquo undated 2
Sepp Kalev I Dr ldquoThe Campaign in Transition From Conventional to Unconventional Warrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) Available from httpwwwfind articlescomp articlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442212 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
Shaw Geoffery D T ldquoPolicemen versus Soldiers the Debate Leading to MAAG Objections and Washington Rejections of the Core of the British Counter-Insurgency Advicerdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 12 no 2 (Summer 2001) 15shy78
Shultz Richard H Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999
Simpson Charles M III Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years Novato CA Presido Press 1983
Singlaub John K Major General (ret) Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century New York NY Summit Books 1991
Skinner Mike ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare As an SF mission-Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16 Available from httpwwwfind articlescomparticles mi_m0HZYis_1_15ai_89646648print Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Smith Jeffrey R ldquoKosovo Still Seethes as UN Official Nears Exitrdquo The Washington Post 18 December 2000 A20 quoted in Kimberly C Field and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo Available from httpwww specialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet Accessed on 22 January 2006
191
ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo Available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtm Internet Accessed on 2 December 2005
Steele Dennis ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article onshyline] Available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet Accessed on 14 May 2006
Szelowski David W Lt Col USMCR (ret) ldquoThe Beginning of the Next Warrdquo handlebarsorg July 2003 Available from httpwwwhandlebarsorga=article printamparticleid =204 Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
The Advisor Volume 1 Multi-national Security Transition Command 11 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep11pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 2 Multi-national Security Transition Command 18 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisorTheAdvisor Sep18pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 3 Multi-national Security Transition Command 25 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep25pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Thomas Glenn CPT (now Major) Conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
Tomes Robert R ldquoRelearning Counterinsurgency Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 2004) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0IBR is_1_34ai_115566394 Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Tovo Kenneth E Major ldquoSpecial Forces Mission Focus for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (December 1996) 2-11
Unified Combatant Command for Special Operations Forces ldquoUS Code Title 10 Section 167rdquo Available from www4lawCornelleduuscode Internet Accessed on 10 January 2004
US Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 Available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet Accessed on 6 April 2006
US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978
US Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) ldquoUnconventional Warfare 2020rdquo (Power Point Presentation) No Date
192
US Army Special Operations Command ldquoMission Area Analysis for POM FY02-07rdquo Fort Bragg NC January 1999
US Army Training and Doctrine Command The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Fort Monroe VA GPO 2003
________ TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-520 Fort Monroe VA GPO 2004
US Government The 911 Commission Report Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Washington DC GPO 2004
US Marine Corps Small Wars Manual Manhattan KS Sunflower University Press 1988
Volckmann Russell Lieutenant Colonel US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951
von Clausewitz Carl On War ed and trans by Michael Howard and Peter Paret Princeton NJ Princeton University Press 1976
Warner Michael The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000 Available from httpwww ciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet Accessed on 4 December 2005
Wendt Eric P Lieutenant Colonel (P) ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
Wilcox Greg and Gary I Wilson ldquoMilitary Response to Fourth Generation Warfare in Afghanistanrdquo d-n-inet 5 May 2002 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetfcs wilson_wilcox_miltary_responsehtm Internet Accessed on 11 August 2004
Williams Thomas J ldquoStrategic Leader Readiness and Competencies for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmy miluaswcparameters03summerwilliamshtm Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Wilson Robert Lee Captain ldquoUnconventional Warfare SFrsquos Past Present and Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 24-27
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoPrepared Statement for the House Appropriations Committee Foreign Operations Subcommitteerdquo Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilspeeches 2004 sp20040429-depsecdef0303html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
193
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoThe Road Map for a Sovereign Iraqrdquo Available from httpwww defenselinkmil speeches2004sp20040609-depsecdef0463html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Woodward Bob Plan of Attack New York Simon and Schuster 2004
Yaphe Judith S ldquoTurbulent Transition in Iraq Can It Succeedrdquo Strategic Forum no 208 (June 2004) 1-8
Yardley Michael T E Lawrence A Biography New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000
ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavianhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo Available from httpwwwossog orgyugoshymainlandhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Zoroya Gregg ldquoAfghan duty offers ultimate in unconventional warfarerdquo USA Today 12 April 2004 Available from httpglobalspecopscomultunconventional warfare html Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
194
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
Combined Arms Research Library US Army Command and General Staff College 250 Gibbon Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-2314
LTC (Retired) Joseph G D Babb Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC (Retired) Mark Lauber Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
James Corum PhD Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC Chadwick W Clark Director Combined Arms Center Special Operation Forces Education 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
John C Knie Colonel SF Director of Training and Doctrine US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School Fort Bragg NC 28310
195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
1 Certification Date 16 June 2006
2 Thesis Author Major D Jones
3 Thesis Title Ending the Debate Unconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matter
4 Thesis Committcc Mcmbcrs dwltampb Signatures ylamplzampamp
5 Distribution Statement See distribution statements A-X on reverse then circle appropriate distribution statement letter code below
O B C D E F X SEE EXPLANATION OF CODES ON REVERSE
If your thesis does not fit into any of the above categories or is classified you must coordinate with the classified section at CARL
6 Justification Justification is required for any distribution other than described in Distribution Statement A All or part of a thesis may justify distribution limitation See limitation justification statements 1-10 on reverse then list below the statement(s) that applies (apply) to your thesis and corresponding chapterssections and pages Follow sample format shown below
EXAMPLE Limitation Justification Statement 1 ChapterISection I Page(s)
Direct Military Support (10) Critical Technology (3) Administrative Operational Use (7)
Chapter 3 Section 4 Chapter 2
I I I
12 31 13-32
Fill in limitation justification for your thesis below
Limitation Justification Statement ChapterSection Pagels)
7 MMAS Thesis Authors Signature f
STATEMENT A Approved for public release distribution is unlimited (Documents with this statement may be made available or sold to the general public and foreign nationals)
STATEMENT B Distribution authorized to US Government agencies only (insert reason and date ON REVERSE OF THIS FORM) Currently used reasons for imposing this statement include the following
1 Foreign Government Information Protection of foreign information
2 Proprietary Information Protection of proprietary information not owned by the US Government
3 Critical Technology Protection and control of critical technology including technical data with potential military application
4 Test and Evaluation Protection of test and evaluation of commercial production or military hardware
5 Contractor Performance Evaluation Protection of information involving contractor performance evaluation
6 Premature Dissemination Protection of information involving systems or hardware from premature dissemination
7 AdministrativeOperational Use Protection of information restricted to official use or for administrative or operational purposes
8 Software Documentation Protection of software documentation - release only in accordance with the provisions of DoD Instruction 79302
9 Specific Authority Protection of information required by a specific authority
10 Direct Military Support To protect export-controlled technical data of such military significance that release for purposes other than direct support of DoD-approved activities may jeopardize a US military advantage
STATEMENT C Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and their contractors (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT D Distribution authorized to DoD and US DoD contractors only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT E Distribution authorized to DoD only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10
STATEMENT F Further dissemination only as directed by (controlling DoD office and date) or higher DoD authority Used when the DoD originator determines that information is subject to special dissemination limitation specified by paragraph 4-505 DoD 52001-R
STATEMENT X Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and private individuals of enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical data in accordance with DoD Directive 523025 (date) Controlling DoD office is (insert)
197
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE
THESIS APPROVAL PAGE
Name of Candidatc Major D Jones
Thesis Title Ending the Debate Unconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matter
Approved by
Thesis Committee Chair - LTC (Retired) Joseph G D Babb MA
Member LTC (Retired) Mark Lauber MS
Member James Corum PhD
Accepted this 16th day of June 2006 by
Director Graduate Degree Programs Robert F ~ amp n PhD
The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Army Command and General Staff Collcgc or any other governmental agency (References to this study should include the foregoing statcrnent)
ABSTRACT
ENDING THE DEBATE UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE AND WHY WORDS MATTER by Major D Jones 207 pages
There is an ongoing debate within the Special Forces community whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are applicable in the contemporary and future Special Operations environments based on current doctrinal definitions and operational concepts For unconventional warfare the debate surrounds its current broad and confusing definition and whether it can be an overarching term for efforts against non-state actors in the Global War on Terrorism The foreign internal defense debate is not over definitions but responsibilities as the conventional military begins to play a larger role in foreign internal defense a legacy Special Forces mission This thesis argues that unconventional warfare needs a clear and concise definition such as ldquooperations by a state or non-state actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or occupying powerrdquo that unconventional warfare should not be ldquotransformedrdquo to fight global insurgency that there is an identifiable relationship between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense called the ldquotransition pointrdquo signifying the change from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense and that this relationship can be modeled that operational preparation of the environment is not unconventional warfare but an emerging operation requiring its own doctrine and that unconventional warfare foreign internal defense and operational preparation of the environment will be the dominate Special Forces missions in the Global War on Terrorism
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In the fall of 2003 I began developing ideas presented in this thesis while trying
to explain the doctrinal differences between unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense to twelve of my student officers enrolled in the third phase of the Special Forces
Officer Qualification Course It is hard to believe three years later that this project has
finally reached fruition This thesis would not have been possible without the support of
the following
First God for all the blessings He has provided me especially my awesome wife
and amazing children that have suffered the most in the last year while I worked on this
project Since we are a Special Forces family I will observe operational security and not
mention them by name but I want to thank them for their patience love and sacrifices
over the last year My wife deserves special recognition for the long hours of proofshy
reading She now knows more about UW and FID than many of my contemporaries
Bottom line is that without God and family I would not be where I am today
Second my heartfelt thanks goes to my thesis committee--Geoff Babb Dr James
Corum and Mark Lauber Thank you for your diligence patience and long hours reading
and providing comments on this lengthy thesis Without your help and expertise in this
subject area this thesis would not have been realized
Third thanks to my staff group advisor instructor team and oral comprehensive
exam committee members for their outstanding support and professionalism Tim
McKane Dr James Willbanks LTC James Beck Major David Stephan Dennis
Hanrahan and Major Cory Peterson I would also like to thank the highly dedicated
iv
CGSC special operation detachment instructors led by LTC Chadwick Clark for their
continued support and encouragement throughout the year I could not have been blessed
with a better group of instructors
Fourth I would also like to thank my Special Forces mentors whom have had the
most profound effect on my understanding of this topic--LTC Mark Grdovic LTC
Jonathan Burns Colonel Kenneth Tovo and Major General Sidney Shachnow I would
also be remiss if I did not thank all of the noncommissioned officers whom I have been
blessed to learn from since I have been in Special Forces especially my old team
members and assistant small group instructors The experiences shared with these
unconventional warriors and leaders have allowed me to put my real world experiences
into context and develop the theories presented in the thesis
Finally I would like to thank all who endured my ranting and raving on this
subject over the last three years especially other Special Forces officers former students
fellow small group instructors staff group 5B and a number of unsuspecting targets of
opportunity who received the verbal executive summary of this project whenever one of
them ventured into my range fan Each one of these opportunities to express the points of
this thesis helped me form my arguments
De Oppresso Liber
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ACRONYMS ix
ILLUSTRATIONS x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Research Questions11 Assumptions11 Limitations 11 Scope and Delimitations 12 Significance of this Study 13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE22
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine23 Introduction23 The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries25 The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors 28 Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation29 Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History31 Special Operations Executive Summary35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare36 Introduction36 Special Operation Branch 38 The Jedburghs 39 Detachment 101 40 The Operational Groups42 Office of Strategic Services Summary47
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations 49 Introduction49 The Three Disciplines 52 Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability 55
vi
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations 56 Eastern Europe 1949-195657 Korea60 Tibet 63 Cuba 64 Laos65 Vietnam67 Nicaragua 69 Afghanistan and the Soviets70 Central Intelligence Agency Summary73
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 73 Doctrinal Developments 73 The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model96
South Vietnam 100 North Vietnam 102 El Salvador104 Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan107 Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines 109 Operation Iraqi Freedom110 Summary 114
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS115
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare115 Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition 115 Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare120
Foreign Internal Defense126 Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition 126
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 128 Logical Lines of Operations129
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation 131 Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 134 Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 137
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 138 The Transition Curve Model142
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq 145 Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model149
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 151 Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency 160 Summary 161
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 163
vii
Conclusion 163 Recommendations165 Areas for Further Research 171
GLOSSARY 173
BIBLIOGRAPHY178
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 196
viii
ACRONYMS
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
COI Coordinator of Information
CORDS Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support
DET 101 Detachment 101
DOD Department of Defense
FMLN Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front
JP Joint Publication
MI6 Military Intelligence (UK)
NORSO Norwegian Special Operations
OG Operational Groups
OPATT Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams
OSS Office of Strategic Services
SO Special Operation
SOE Special Operations Executive
US United States
USASFC United States Army Special Forces Command
VCI Viet Cong Infrastructure
ix
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model 96
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines132
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation 136
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model137
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model144
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)146
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) 148
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed150
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model160
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a definition is to clarify The term or concept in question should be more understandable once its definition has been presented Generally the ideal definition should leave little or no room for ambiguity1
David Charters and Maurice Tugwell
If you spend more than 30 seconds debating what it means it isnrsquot clear enough for the users2
Clinton JAncher III
Since its birth in 1952 Special Forces have had the exclusive responsibility
within the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct unconventional warfare Joint
Publication (JP) 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms defines unconventional warfare as
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion3
1David Charters and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz (Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984) 29
2Clinton J Ancker III Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing (Fort Leavenworth KS Director of the Armyrsquos Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005)
3Department of Defense Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet accessed on 16 December 2005
1
Although not clear in this definition doctrinally and historically unconventional
warfare is ldquothe culmination of successful [military] efforts to organize and mobilize the
civil populous against a hostile government or an occupying powerrdquo4 United States (US)
Army unconventional warfare doctrine also has an addition not found in the joint
definition stating that this operation is ldquopredominantly conducted through by and with
indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo5 A comparison between the current unconventional
warfare definition and the definition from 1955 highlights how little has changed in over
fifty years
[O]perations conducted in time of war behind enemy lines by predominantly indigenous personnel responsible in varying degrees to friendly control or direction in furtherance of military and political objectives It consists of the interrelated fields of guerrilla warfare evasion and escape and subversion against hostile states6
US unconventional warfare has historically been used in one of two ways either
to support or shape the environment for the larger conventional campaign or as a
unilateral effort generally conducted covertly7 Examples of unconventional warfare
shaping for conventional military operations are well known such as the Allied support
to the resistances in France the Balkans and the Far East in World War II and most
recently in Northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom Unilateral unconventional
4Department of the Army FM 3-0520 Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 26 June 2001) 2-1
5Ibid This version of the definition is also used in FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 1-1
6Colonel (ret) Aaron Bank From OSS to Green Beret The Birth of Special Forces (New York NY Pocket Books 1986) 179
7FM 3-0520 2-3
2
warfare efforts have been much less well known mostly due to their covert nature but
include operations behind the Iron Curtain to develop resistance capabilities in
Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s and again in Afghanistan after the events of
11 September during Operation Enduring Freedom
The unilateral examples cited above have primarily been conducted by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) which also maintains a covert unconventional warfare
capability referred to as paramilitary operations or special operations8 As William
Daugherty notes that for the CIA a special operation ldquomeans paramilitary operations-shy
military-type actions utilizing non-military personnel [indigenous personnel or
surrogates]rdquo9 The CIA has generally been responsible for conducting covert
unconventional warfare as a tool of foreign policy when the president wants to have
plausible deniability especially during peacetime Covert operations are ldquoplanned and
executed to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor A covert
operation differs from a clandestine operation in that the emphasis is placed on
concealment of the operationrdquo10 In times of conflict when military forces are employed
the DOD takes the lead responsibility for unconventional warfare The CIA conducted
numerous covert paramilitary activities during the Cold War against communist regimes
and most recently shaped the environments in Afghanistan and Iraq for Special Forces to
conduct successful unconventional warfare
8William J Daugherty Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004) 15 84-85
9Ibid 15
10FM 3-0520 Glossary 7-8
3
In the early 1960rsquos President Kennedy called upon Special Forces to use its
unconventional warfare skills and knowledge developed to support an insurgency to
defeat the Cold War communist-sponsored insurgencies or wars of national revolutions
threatening to expand globally if not checked This new mission was called foreign
internal defense and was successfully prosecuted by Special Forces teams at the tactical
and operational levels of the Vietnam War JP 1-02 defines foreign internal defense as
ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action
programs taken by another government to free and protect its society from subversion
lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo11 JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes foreign internal defense into three types of
support
Indirect--focuses on building strong national infrastructure through economic and military capabilities that contribute to self sufficiencyrdquo12
Direct (not involving combat operations)--the involvement of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populous or military13
Combat--the use of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populace or military14
As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories represent significantly different levels of US
diplomatic and military commitment and riskrdquo15
11JP 1-02
12Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
13Ibid
14Ibid
4
At the same time President Kennedy tasked the CIA with the same mission but
conducted clandestinely The clandestine foreign internal defense mission would later be
known as ldquospecial activitiesrdquo16 As William Daugherty explains
The CIArsquos paramilitary cadre is most often employed in training foreign military and security forces however training that falls under the rubric of special activities but which requires the support of the Agencyrsquos covert action infrastructure--rather than actual combat operations--was by far the most common mission of the paramilitary element17
Even though the CIA mission presented here seems confusing the covert finding is the
constraining document that provides the detailed operational limitations and political
goals alleviating any confusion
By the end of Vietnam Special Forces had also conducted special reconnaissance
against the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos and Cambodia and direct action in the highly-
publicized raid on the Son Tay prison camp in an attempt to rescue American prisoners of
war which would later be added to Special Forces doctrine as personnel recovery With
the strategic military and political failure of Vietnam Special Forces tried to distance
itself from foreign internal defense which carried with it the stigma of Vietnam At the
same time Special Forces all but forgot about its unconventional warfare roots because
the likelihood of successfully conducting unconventional warfare in the nuclear age
seemed remote Instead Special Forces focused on less politically-charged missions
such as special reconnaissance and direct action which both fit nicely in the operations
plans of the Cold War
15Ibid I-4
16Daugherty 85
17Ibid 84-85
5
In the 1980s Special Forces conducted foreign internal defense to defeat an
insurgency in El Salvador and Honduras and provided support to the CIArsquos covert
unconventional warfare efforts to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras
in Nicaragua All of these operations proved successful although Special Forces had only
been utilized in a supporting role during the two unconventional warfare campaigns The
success in El Salvador began a string of successes for Special Forces conducting special
reconnaissance direct action and foreign internal defense in places such as Panama
Desert Storm Bosnia and Kosovo adding other missions such as combat search and
rescue and coalition support to its repertoire as well By 2001 few thought that
unconventional warfare would ever be conducted again and there were numerous studies
to determine the relevancy of unconventional warfare in future conflicts18 In the summer
of 2001 senior Special Forces leadership attempted to ensure continued Special Forces
viability by placing all Special Forces missions under a broad category of unconventional
warfare These included not only Special Forcesrsquo missions to date but now included
counterproliferation combating terrorism and the other collateral activities such as
humanitarian demining operations and coalition support19 However their efforts would
be disrupted by the terrorist attacks of 11 September
Less than two years later Special Forces had successfully prosecuted two
unconventional warfare campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan
using indigenous forces instead of massive conventional formations and the other a
18Colonel Michael R Kershner ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84
19FM 3-0520 2-1
6
shaping operation in northern Iraq using the indigenous Kurdish insurgents to fix thirteen
of twenty Iraqi divisions north of Baghdad lessening the burden on the conventional
combined forces land component commandrsquos southern invasion force Now in the
postconflict phase of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Special Forces should
doctrinally be conducting foreign internal defense helping the indigenous government
forces to defeat internal threats in an attempt to secure the environment and allow the
political processes to develop
To date however Special Forces have been primarily employed in unilateral
actions focused on ldquokill or capturerdquo missions This unilateral employment has all but
negated the force multiplying capability inherent in Special Forces operations through
training and advising indigenous government security forces Instead the conventional
Army has taken on the majority of the training and advising roles in both theaters
Although Special Forces touts working by with and through indigenous forces as its
core competency Special Forces found ways to remove itself from the burden of training
and advising indigenous conventional units in Iraq and Afghanistan Using the Global
War on Terrorism as a reason a similar pattern of passing missions to Marines or
contractors is evident in other foreign internal defense operations such as the Georgian
train and equip mission and the African Crisis Response Initiative now referred to as
ACOTA or African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance20
20GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 available from
7
As of the spring of 2006 the debate continues throughout the Special Forces
community as to whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
are still applicable in todayrsquos contemporary operating environment and future conflicts
Studies being conducted seem to continue to suggest that current unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine and definitions need to be ldquotransformedrdquo for a new
application against non-state actors This is a new twist on an old debate However all of
these studies seem to gloss over the fact that in Afghanistan and Iraq unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense have been the primary operations being conducted
by Special Forces
The success of these operations with regards to Special Forcesrsquo efforts is due to
the application of legacy unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
Therefore current attempts to redefine and apply these doctrinal operations in an effort to
ldquotransformrdquo them for the current operations against non-state actors such as al Qarsquoida and
its associated movements have been difficult for one simple reason--historically and
doctrinally unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are only applicable to a
single nation state not a non-state entity21 These operations were never meant for
anything other than supporting insurgencies and or defeating insurgencies within a nation
httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraraycongress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2005
21Spelling convention for al Qarsquoida used throughout thesis comes from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet accessed on 6 February 2006
8
state and thus have proven themselves to be just as applicable today as in the days of their
inception
In both Iraq and Afghanistan unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
have been operationally linked as never before At some point in time during both of
these operations combat operations shifted to stability operations and with this shift
Special Forces should have changed mission orientation from unconventional warfare to
foreign internal defense However few within the special operations community
identified this transition and continued to define Special Forces operations in both
theaters as unconventional warfare The major obstacle to understanding this linkage is
the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be high-intensity combat theaters nothing like
the low-intensity or traditional peacetime foreign internal defense missions in theaters
like Columbia Thailand or the hundreds of other countries that Special Forces conduct
foreign internal defense as part of the geographic combatant commanderrsquos theater
security cooperation plan
The last historical example of a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense was in France the Balkans and Southeast Asia at the end of World War
II when the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and British Special Operations
Executive (SOE) conducted operations to weaken the occupying Axis powers However
even these case studies are flawed because there was almost no US involvement in the
postwar stability operations in these countries after World War II Germany and France
were the only two countries that the US conducted full-scale stability security transition
and reconstruction operations but since there were no viable resistance organizations for
the OSS and the SOE to support they are of no use to this study In the countries in
9
which OSS and SOE had operated the resistance apparatus was either demobilized-shy
disarmed paid and returned to civilian status or turned over the newly re-established
governments Therefore no relationships between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense were established which led to ldquodemobilizationrdquo becoming part of the
legacy of US unconventional warfare doctrine
Current foreign internal defense doctrine was developed out of Special Forces
experience from communist wars of national liberation in Vietnam and Latin America as
well as US nation building efforts in countries like Haiti Bosnia and Kosovo Special
Forces did not conduct unconventional warfare--US sponsored insurgency--during these
operations even though its mode of operation may have been by through and with
indigenous forces
Understanding the distinction between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense will be extremely important with the adoption of pre-emption and regime
removal as doctrinal concepts The US military has to be ready for the same kinds of
operations that it has observed since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom where there are unconventional warfare efforts in pre-conflict
and conflict phases which then transition to foreign internal defense operations in the
postconflict phases and finally return to peacetime engagement In developing future
major campaign and operational plans understanding the roles of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as well as how and when these two missions are related will
be extremely important for the planner A solid doctrinal model for this relationship may
be the basis for joint and interagency coordination throughout the campaign
10
Research Questions
The primary research question this thesis will answer is if unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as currently defined are still applicable to current and future
Special Forcesrsquo operations To answer the primary question three secondary questions
must be answered what are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and
how are they related In answering the secondary question of what unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense are similar tertiary questions must be answered for
each what is the doctrinal and operational history of Special Forces and CIA with respect
to these two missions what is their application against non-state actors and global
insurgency and should they be redefined With regards to the secondary question on the
interrelation of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense the tertiary
questions are Is there an identifiable transition point between the two and can a
relationship be modeled
Assumptions
The major assumption of this research project is that the simple meanings of
words can have a significant effect on the operational employment of Special Forces and
are not just a matter of semantics Another assumption is that senior Special Forces
leaders will be willing to address the findings of this project if they are contrary to current
thoughts and frameworks
Limitations
This thesis is written as an unclassified manuscript using public information that
is available through the Combined Arms Research Library and other electronic and
11
internet databases that are generally available to the public Although the research may be
in the classified and unclassified realm only unclassified materials and references will be
used in the thesis All references will be listed in the bibliography for further research of
the reader
Case studies used in the research and presentation of this thesis will be studied
through secondary sources and will not involve visits to the battlefield or areas of
operations due to lack of dedicated funding for such study In case studies related to
Kosovo or the efforts in Northern Iraq first hand knowledge may be relied upon and
checked with other sources
Scope and Delimitations
This study will assess current unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine of the US Army Special Forces and joint doctrine This study will also address
the current missions that are being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan and compare them
to other unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense missions from history
Classified missions or units will not be discussed by name although unclassified terms
for these missions and elements may be included This may lead to confusion for some
readers that lack special operations background and therefore will be avoided as much
as possible This study will also describe joint and interagency relationships necessary for
Special Forces employment during unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
This study will not describe in detail the other core tasks of Special Forces unless they
have a direct bearing on some finding or recommendation This study will use Special
Forces throughout due to the historical significance of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense to Special Forces The Special Forces branch is the proponent for 12
unconventional warfare doctrine as well However special operations forces could be
used interchangeably where Special Forces are used to describe operations from 1990 to
today
Significance of this Study
The current trend in the Special Forces community is to use unconventional
warfare as an overarching term to describe any operation conducted by through or with
indigenous or surrogate forces even operations that are clearly not aimed at the
overthrow or removal of a hostile government or occupying power Some reasons for
using the term unconventional warfare are to ensure a niche mission for special
operations forces it is a popular term today for the civilian leadership who view
unconventional warfare as the opposite of conventional warfare fitting nicely into the
Global War on Terrorism and a broad definition would seem to un-constrain Special
Forces operations since all missions could invariably be called unconventional and gain
larger political and budgetary support The last point was evident in the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review that recommended a significant increase in special
operations forces to prosecute the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo campaign22
Based on Special Forcesrsquo contemporary experiences the continued
misunderstanding of unconventional warfare and the resulting attempts to redefine it as
an overarching term may have unforeseen and unanticipated consequences on todayrsquos
battlefield and in future campaigns For example the rules of engagement in ldquoclassicrdquo
22Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report (6 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
13
unconventional warfare aimed at overthrowing or removing a government is much less
restrictive than the rules of engagement in a foreign internal defense mission23 In the
latter mission the rules of engagement are very restrictive Thus using unconventional
warfare as an overarching term could have ramifications in places where Special Forcesrsquo
efforts are purely to train and advise a host nation to deny sanctuary to its enemies In this
case the restrictions keep US military efforts from being directly employed such as in
Colombia The rules of engagement are directly tied to the most important word when
dealing with operations that require the support of the local populations and international
opinion legitimacy
For the US to support an insurgency or to support a government fighting an
insurgency the question of legitimacy is primary According to Timothy J Lomperis ldquoan
insurgency is a political challenge to a regimersquos authority by an organized and violent
questioning of the regimersquos claims to legitimacyrdquo24 Based on this definition when the
US is conducting unconventional warfare in support of an insurgency it is also
challenging the legitimacy of the regime and may be using conventional military means
as well When the US is supporting a government using foreign internal defense then it is
supporting the claims of legitimacy of the host nation Based on the recent experiences in
Iraq and Afghanistan it is obvious that at some point when the transition from conflict to
postconflict or unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The US military
23Major Peter McCollaum Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
24Timothy J Lomperis From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam (Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996) 33
14
must constrain its use of military action to legitimize its efforts and those of the new
government Not understanding this leads to the misuse of its firepower-centric
conventional military capabilities that ultimately decrease ones legitimacy This point is
highlighted in JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal
Defense
The nature of US tactical participation in HN[Host Nation] internal conflicts requires judicious and prudent rules of engagement (ROE) and guidelines for the application of force Inappropriate destruction and violence attributed to US forces may easily reduce the legitimacy and sovereignty of the supported government In addition these incidents may be used by adversaries to fuel anti-American sentiments and assist the cause of the opposition25
This is further evidenced by the outcry over the use of ldquotorturerdquo to gather intelligence the
environment has changed and legitimacy may be more important for long-lasting support
than the short-term gains of torture
The purpose of this thesis is to clarify the doctrine and attempt to end the nearly
fifty-five year old debate determine the relationship of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense and determine what the application of these two missions will be
in the Global War on Terrorism In this ldquolong warrdquo as Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld calls it understanding exactly what kind of operation is being undertaken and
the environment will be critical for maintaining legitimacy of US efforts and those of
friendly insurgencies and governments to maintain local regional and international
support for the Global War on Terrorism
25JP 3-071 I-14
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are numerous sources available on both the topics of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense These sources include books professional civilian
journal articles military doctrinal manuals and military journals specifically Special
Warfare magazine produced by the United States John F Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School The use of unconventional warfare in these publications runs the
gambit from describing support to insurgency to the use of special operations forces
conducting unilateral operations In some cases counterinsurgency is also described as a
component of unconventional warfare The literature review shows that there is obviously
a lot of confusion on terms and definitions related to unconventional warfare
The most current information on unconventional warfare and Special Forces
operations can be found in three different manuals The first is US Army Field Manual
(FM) 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations (1999) the second is Change 1 FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations (2004) and third FM 3-05201 Special Forces
Unconventional Warfare Operations (2003) All three manuals use the unconventional
warfare definition found in the 2001 Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Currently the final draft of the newest FM
3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare is being reviewed Due to its final
draft status and classification none of the newest changes will be directly addressed in
this thesis There is currently no joint doctrine for unconventional warfare
16
Some of the useful historical unconventional warfare related documents are the
FM 31-20 series of manuals (1961 and 1965) These manuals are the last ldquountaintedrdquo
versions prior to the lessons and doctrine from Special Forces involvement in Vietnam
being incorporated into doctrine The Special Forces manuals after 1965 increasingly
show the effects of mission creep and a graying of unconventional warfare and
counterinsurgency It was out of this confusion that todayrsquos broad unconventional warfare
definition arose
In the summer of 2001 the United States Army Special Forces Command
(USASFC) completed a study called Unconventional Warfare 2020 The aim of the study
was to define Special Forcesrsquo future concepts and ensure relevancy for the force as the
Army was concurrently conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates as part of
Joint Vision 2020 now referred to as ldquotransformationrdquo Colonel Michael Kershner
former Deputy Commander of USASFC summarized the findings of this study in a
series of articles such as the one that appeared in the Winter 2001 edition of Special
Warfare titled ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military
Operationsrdquo However the events of 11 September would put these efforts on hold In
2003 the newest version of next FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare
Operations was published This version should have captured the findings from the
Unconventional Warfare 2020 study but in fact they had been lost To date they have not
been addressed with the focus now turned towards the application of unconventional
warfare against non-state actors
Foreign internal defense references are even more plentiful and the term more
commonly understood The volume of work on this subject is due to the renewed interest
17
in the subject based on the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the
publication of the DOD Directive 300005 titled Military Support for Stability Security
Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) However there are few works that address
foreign internal defense in a high-intensity environment Others only describe foreign
internal defense as training missions in support of host nation governments
There are two excellent foreign internal defense manuals FM 21-20-3 Foreign
Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces published in
1994 and the Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense which was updated in early 2004 These manuals are the
clearest and most concise documents dealing with foreign internal defense This is most
likely due to the fact that foreign internal defense doctrine is much more black and white
than unconventional warfare doctrine An extremely detailed historical study of the
development of US counterinsurgency doctrine leading up to the formal foreign internal
defense doctrine can be found in Larry Cablersquos book Conflict of Myths The Development
of American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War published in 1986
There are no sources that address any type of transition between the
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense There are however some
references to the transition or termination point between conflict and postconflict
operations of conventional forces that may be applicable to defining the unconventional
warfare to foreign internal defense transition The most significant problem with these
studies is that they were written prior to 11 September and focus on the termination of
combat operations versus the termination of hostilities or the return to peacetime
engagement
18
Special Warfare magazine also provides a sense of past and current trends of
understanding of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense from the
perspective of Special Forces concept and doctrinal development The large body of
articles in Special Warfare highlights the confusion surrounding unconventional warfare
The most recent example of senior Special Forces leader misunderstanding
unconventional warfare is found in the May 2004 Special Warfare in which now retired
Major General Geoffrey C Lambert former commanding general of the Special Warfare
Center and School explains that ldquoSpecial Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare
which includes counterinsurgency [authorsrsquo emphasis] and guerrilla warfarerdquo
A more recent issue April 2005 had an article titled ldquoOperation White Star A
UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo by Major Dean S Newman in which he
describes the use of unconventional warfare to fight insurgencies and terrorism His
premise is based on his historical analysis of the White Star program a clandestine CIA
special activity program to support indigenous Laotian Hmong tribesmen to disrupt North
Vietnamese Ho Chi Minh Trail and sanctuary areas inside of Laos While commonly
referred to as an unconventional warfare program by many historians and authors White
Star was actually a clandestine foreign internal defense operation using an indigenous
element to fight an insurgency when the host nation government did not want to get
involved The article is fraught with contradictions and misuse of terms and ideas Had
Major Newman approached this topic from the point of view that the North Vietnamese
were ldquooccupyingrdquo these Laotian sanctuary areas and that the Laotian government was
unable to regain control he may have been able to substantiate his argument that White
19
Star was an unconventional warfare operation However his argument that
unconventional warfare can be used against an insurgency is still an oxymoron
One of the best sources on the future of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense is Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-3-520
Military Operations Future Force Concepts for Army Special Operations Forces dated
14 January 2004 This pamphlet provides the conceptual foundation for the
transformation current Special Forces operations into what is referred to as full spectrum
Special Forces operations In the full spectrum Special Forces operations concept
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are two of the three major mission
sets This is a departure from the Unconventional Warfare 2020 findings since it once
talks specifically of two separate missions unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense This publication was not published by the doctrine branches of the Special
Warfare Center and School which may account for its significant departure from the
mainstream of Special Forces doctrine published by the Special Warfare Center
Historical references for unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are
mostly detailed studies of the history of Special Forces An example of this is Thomas
Adamsrsquo US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional
Warfare Susan Marquisrsquo Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations
Forces and most recently Hy Rothsteinrsquos Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of
Unconventional Warfare published in 2006 The best book for understanding the original
intent of unconventional warfare is found in Colonel Aaron Bankrsquos autobiography From
OSS to Green Berets Bank who recently died at the age of 101 was known as the
ldquofather of Special Forcesrdquo His book describes in detail how he worked on developing the
20
Special Forces in the early 1950s This is one of the few primary sources from one of the
original authors of Special Forces doctrine With respect to foreign internal defense
primary sources Charles Simpson provides an excellent account of the first thirty years
of Special Forces in his book Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years
There have also been numerous Command and General Staff College Master of
Military Art and Science and School of Advanced Military Studies thesis papers on both
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and their application across the
spectrum of operations One School of Advanced Military Studiesrsquo thesis by Major Duke
C Shienle provides some insight on the use of indigenous forces developed for
unconventional warfare in the postconflict phase and uses ldquounconventional operationsrdquo to
highlight the overarching use of indigenous forces in both missions He also suggests
renaming the final phase of unconventional warfare from demobilization to postconflict
to highlight the use of indigenous forces in both environments
Review of the literature indicates there are no definitive studies that answer the
questions proposed here Indeed most of the literature on these topics have not provided
suitable definitions of unconventional warfare and continue to demonstrate a lack of
common understanding or agreement as to what unconventional warfare is With respect
to foreign internal defense numerous articles have been written on this subject but none
have presented options for the employment of Special Forces found in this thesis and no
articles have been written on trying to redefine foreign internal defense Finally no
articles have been written that have tried to explain the relationship between
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
21
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE
The purpose of this research is to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense as traditionally defined are still applicable to Special Forces operations
in the contemporary and future operating environments This chapter will begin to answer
the tertiary research question ldquoWhat is the doctrinal and operational history of the
Special Forces and the CIA with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defenserdquo This will be accomplished using three research methods doctrinal
development comparison historical comparison and case studies
The doctrinal development and historical comparisons will be intertwined due to
the nature of this subject in which doctrine and historical developments happened
concurrently This study will chronicle the doctrinal development of US unconventional
warfare from the British development of this concept prior to World War II to todayrsquos
operations The comparison will be made in relation to the SOE the OSS the CIA and
finally the US Army Special Forces This construct was chosen because it allowed the
chronological development of unconventional warfare doctrine and practice from the
original concepts developed by the forefathers of the British SOE to the establishment of
the American OSS and the growing and employment pains of unconventional warfare in
World War II
The study will then focus on the sometimes rough transition from the OSS to the
CIA and the history of the agencyrsquos use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense up to the events of 11 September As for the Special Forces the study will
22
analyze the history of Special Forces and with respect to unconventional warfare and
later foreign internal defense from the initial concepts for a military unconventional
warfare capability in the early 1950 to the present
Each historical analysis will be summarized with respect to the type of operation-shy
unconventional warfare or foreign internal defense the signature of the operation--overt
to covert the operational relationship--decisive or shaping and finally the operations
approach--indirect direct and combat--the same support pattern from foreign internal
defense doctrine Lastly in the unconventional warfare cases an analysis will also be
made as to the mode of transition of the resistance forces whether they were
demobilized turned over to the government immediately or if US efforts or ties to the
organization were stopped with no transitory event
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
Introduction
World War I witnessed the first modern use of unconventional warfare as an
economy of force operation by both the British and Germans in peripheral campaigns
outside of continental Europe In essence unconventional warfare is the support to an
indigenous insurgent or resistance group aimed at overthrowing a constituted government
or an occupying power respectively Unconventional warfare can be used to support to
resistance elements also known as partisans resisting an occupier as an economy of
force during major operations by forcing the commitment of enemy conventional forces
to guarding rear areas instead of being employed on the front lines
The primary benefit of unconventional warfare is the disproportionate resources
that a government or an occupier is forced to commit against a relatively weak opponent 23
The insurgent if employed correctly maintains the initiative by deciding the time and
place of its attacks In other words they never conduct an operation unless success is
likely or outweighs the risk to the insurgent movement For the hostile government or
occupier large amounts of resources including personnel money and equipment are
necessary to secure lines of communication key facilities and capabilities and key
terrain When in support of a conventional military effort these enemy resources are kept
from being deployed to main conventional battle areas By World War II unconventional
warfare had become a great threat to modern armies because of their ldquoabsolute
dependence on industrial and economic bases in their rear and on lines of
transportationrdquo26
During World War I unconventional warfare was used by both the British and the
Germans The young British Captain (later Colonel) T E Lawrence an advisor to Sherif
Feisal the future King of Iraq used the Arab Army to help the British defeat the Turks27
In East Africa the German Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck commanded a
guerrilla army of 14000 which successfully tied down the efforts of 160000 British
Portuguese and Belgian troops28 Both of these efforts were successful not due to the
tactical outcome of their efforts to support partisan forces but at the operational and
strategic level by diverting enemy forces from other fronts Both of these efforts proved
26F O Miksche Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements (London Faber and Faber Limited) 35
27Michael Yardley T E Lawrence A Biography (New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000) 83-84
28Robert B Asprey War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History (New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994) 174
24
the concept of supporting indigenous resistance elements but given the scale and
devastation of World War I especially on the Western Front the British failed to initially
assimilate these lessons into their doctrine assuming that the next great power war would
not occur for at least ten years29
During the interwar years unconventional warfare was virtually forgotten until
the rise of Adolph Hitler energized the study of unconventional warfare by the British
These studies began in 1938 when Adolph Hitler annexed Austria and the British began
to look seriously at the possibility of another war against Germany The British War
Office driven by the impending German threat to Europe tasked individuals each with
varying degrees of experience in irregular warfare to study irregular capabilities and
operations as well as to develop operational concepts for the employment of such forces
To their credit they produced extraordinary results considering the complexity of these
types of operations As a result of these studies the British developed the SOE in midshy
1940
The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries
One of the first individuals to be tasked with the detailed study of unconventional
warfare concepts was Major Lawrence Grand assigned under Admiral ldquoQuexrdquo Sinclair
the head of the British Secret or Special Intelligence Service to look at ldquothe theory of
secret offensives how could enemies be attacked otherwise than by the usual military
meansrdquo30 Simultaneously other officers were given similar tasks and as happens with
29M R D Foot The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 (London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984) 9
30Ibid 10-11 25
projects surrounded in secrecy none of them knew of the parallel efforts From this
emerged another unconventional warfare visionary Lieutenant Colonel J C F Holland
who became interested in ldquoirregular warfarerdquo based on his experiences in Ireland and his
first-hand knowledge of the T E Lawrencersquos operations against the Turks As M R D
Foot describes Hollandrsquos studies
[He] collected reports on Boer tactics in the South African war on Lawrence and his partners on guerilla activities in the Russian civil war the Spanish Civil War the struggle between China and Japan the smouldering [sic] Arab-Jewish conflicts in Palestine and of course on Ireland31
Holland became an advocate of irregular warfare which at the time included guerrilla
warfare and psychological operations and had sufficient backing by the deputy director
of British Intelligence that his ideas would become the foundation of the yet-to-beshy
formed SOE
Another visionary that would tie all of these studies together was Sir Colin
Gubbins Described by S J Lewis as ldquoone of the most important personalities of the
SOErdquo Gubbins would later rise to distinction as the commander of the SOE32 Gubbins
wrote two field manuals or pamphlets The Art of Guerrilla Warfare and Partisan
Leadersrsquo Handbook both of which would become the core training documents for future
SOE operatives33
The final visionary and a man with sufficient knowledge and political influence to
provide the strategic vision for an organization such as the SOE was Dr Hugh Dalton
31Ibid 11-12
32S J Lewis Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 (Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991) 3
33Ibid
26
who was the Minister of Economic Warfare in 1940 After a meeting in mid-July of
1940 aimed at trying to decide who would head an organization for conducting irregular
warfare Dalton wrote a letter that laid out the intent of such an organization and a basic
strategy for its employment As Dalton explained ldquoWe have got to organize movements
in enemy-occupied territory comparable to the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland [and] to
the Chinese Guerillas now operating against Japanrdquo34 He described this organization
as a ldquodemocratic internationalrdquo and suggested that it ldquomust use many different methods
including industrial and military sabotage labour agitation and strikes continuous
propaganda terrorist acts against traitors and German leaders boycotts and riotsrdquo35 He
suggested that there needed to be ldquoa new organization to co-ordinate inspire control and
assist the nationals of oppressed countries who must themselves be the direct participants
We need absolute secrecy a certain fanatical enthusiasm willingness to work with
people of different nationalities [and] complete political reliabilityrdquo36 Dalton would
become SOErsquos first chairman responsible to the chief of staff of the War Cabinet who
would provide him with the strategic intent for SOE operations He was ordered by
Churchill to ldquoset Europe ablazerdquo37
While there were others that were involved in the development of the SOE these
four visionaries stand out as the most important to the overall development of British
unconventional warfare capabilities leading up to the establishment of the SOE
34Foot 19
35Ibid
36Ibid
37Ibid 30
27
The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors
The SOErsquos most powerful weapon and what set SOE apart from MI6--the British
intelligence service whose primary mission was espionage was SOErsquos ability to organize
armed indigenous populations in occupied territories to resist their occupiers SOE
operatives were simply the facilitators to make the resistance organizations a viable threat
to the occupying forces With the advent of man-portable long-range communications
and aerial delivery systems these populations were now within reach and could be
supported by bringing material by air as well as synchronized into the larger theater
campaign What made this such a worthwhile venture was the large number of potential
recruits thanks to the interests and actions of the German occupiers As F O Miksche
explains ldquoPrecisely as in the First World War the German war aims were too vague
and indefinite to offer any attractions to the people of Europe the Germans in both
world conflicts were psychologically incapable of gaining the sympathy of the masses38
These operations would force the Germans and their allies to expend exponentially
increasing numbers of troops the farther they advanced from Germany As Miksche
notes ldquoHitlerrsquos armoured legions which were able to first surround the enemy forces
were themselves ultimately surrounded by wholly hostile populationsrdquo39 It would be
these populations that the SOE would organize train and advise
38Miksche 45
39Ibid 73
28
Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation
The conceptual applications of unconventional warfare by the British and their
actual operational successes were a testament to the capabilities of the resistance The
British SOE was originally based on small teams that would be able to organize
resistance cells and intelligence networks These SOE operatives would infiltrate into a
denied area by air boat or rat-line--a clandestine means of moving personnel overland
by different techniques They would then linkup with the indigenous resistance force and
develop the force for further operations and intelligence collection The organization for
an average network or circuit included an organizer a courier who was often a woman a
wireless operator and a sabotage instructor Once on the ground the organizers and
wireless operators if not one in the same minimized contact as much as possible because
the wireless ldquowas always the circuitrsquos weakest pointrdquo40
Initially the SOE established small clandestine cellular networks in German-
occupied territory called ldquoreseauxrdquo41 In such an environment the first step in establishing
a network was for a single agent to parachute in to pave the way for the network leader
who would follow a number of days later The initial agent was responsible for
establishing or making contact with intelligence and support networks The network
leader would then parachute in and continue to expand the network He would receive
further augmentation over time depending on his requests The network leader could also
40Foot 106
41Sir Robin Brook ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed (Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992) 69
29
request low-density specialties if necessary This was the case when Francis Suttill head
of the Prosper network in Paris requested an operator skilled at identifying and
establishing air landing zones Three months after the establishment of the Prosper
network Henri Dericourt a former French pilot arrived and was able to organize landing
areas that would receive over sixty-seven agents42
The SOE was also capable of supporting and organizing larger resistance
organizations especially in countries such as Yugoslavia where the resistance had
liberated areas in which the resistance armies could grow relatively unhindered by Axis
counterinsurgency operations This was also possible in France but security concerns
lengthened the time for these networks to grow into substantial numbers The French
Jockey network led by Francis Cammaerts developed into a large network carefully over
time Cammaerts accomplished this by establishing a true self-healing cellular network of
independent but linked groups that kept the network safe even if one of the independent
cells was disrupted This network grew to an amazing army of 10000 resistance
members that encompassed areas from Lyons to the Mediterranean coast to the Italian
and Swiss Frontiers43 In support of Normandy SOE and the US OSS formed the
Jedburghs which operated ldquounder secrecy but more exposed and apt to be in uniform
[which] was more appropriate for close cooperation with invading Allied troopsrdquo44
42ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtmInternet accessed on 2 December 2005
43Ibid
44Brook 69
30
Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History
The SOE traces its lineage directly to the British Secret Intelligence Service
better known as MI6 After MI6rsquos embarrassing loss of its intelligence networks in most
of occupied Europe to German penetration it would take Daltonrsquos SOE to reestablish
intelligence and operational networks that would support Allied operations throughout
the war A short time before the German invasion and occupation of France the chiefs of
staff of the British War Cabinet identified one British strategic objective as ldquothe creation
of widespread revolt in Germanyrsquos conquered territoriesrdquo45 To this end they realized
that an organization would have to be established to meet this goal Lord Neville
Chamberlain whom had resigned as the British Prime Minister after mishandling Hitler
at Munich was still a powerful influence as a member of the War Cabinet and signed the
founding charter of SOE on 19 July 1940 This charter established by name the SOE and
its role ldquoto co-ordinate [sic] all action by way of subversion and sabotage against the
enemy overseasrdquo46
The SOErsquos original capabilities came from the MI6 Section D EH and MI R
Section D which stood for destruction had been MI6rsquos sabotage section47 The Electra
House or EH as it was known was the site of Sir Campbell Stuartrsquos Department a
subsection of the Foreign Office of MI648 MI R stood for Military Intelligence
45Foot 18
46Ibid 20-21
47Ibid 22
48Ibid 253
31
Research49 Originally SOE was subdivided into three special operations branches SO1
SO2 and SO3 SO1 was the propaganda section but in August 1941 it was taken away
from SOE after numerous arguments and turned into its own department the Political
Warfare Executive SO2 was the active operations department while SO3 was for
planning50 There were also compartmentalized sections for each occupied country and a
liaison relationship existed with the governments in exile or representatives of
independent resistance organizations
The rivalry between the MI6 and SOE would continue throughout the war for one
simple reason as Roy Godson explains
There are invariably tensions between the [clandestine collectors and covert action officers] Clandestine collectors frequently work with sources who have political goals the same kinds of people who would also be targeted by covert action officers Covert action officersrsquo connections meanwhile are almost by definition good for the collector51
Nigel Morris describes MI6rsquos reservations about the SOE ldquo[The] Head of SIS [Secret
Intelligence Service] Sir Stewart Menzies stated repeatedly that SOE were lsquoamateur
dangerous and bogusrsquo and took it upon himself to bring massive internal pressure to bear
on the fledgling organizationrdquo52 The other ldquosecret rivalsrdquo as Foot calls them included not
only the propaganda branches but with the Admiralty over SOE maritime operations the
49Ibid 254
50Ibid 22
51Roy Godson Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence (New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004) 34-35
52Niger Morris ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940shy1946rdquo BBC History available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwo soe_printhtml Internet accessed on 1 December 2005
32
Air Ministry over air clearance and with the Royal Air Force over who was more
effective53 Morris also noted that ldquoBomber Command also despised SOE and resented
having to loan aircraft for lsquounethicalrsquo clandestine missions They wanted to win the war
by bombing Germany to its kneesrdquo54
Some of the more famous and unclassified operations that the SOE conducted
include the sabotage of the Pessac power station in France the assassination of Reinhard
Heydrich in Czechoslovakia the destruction of the Gorgopotamos rail bridge in Greece
and the destruction of the German heavy-water plant in Norway The destruction of the
Pessac power plant disrupted German U-boat operations at the port in Bordeaux The
assassination of Heydrich was carried out to counter his new posting and strong arm
counterinsurgent tactics which included round-up executions The Gorgopotamos rail
bridge linked a secondary supply route for the German effort in North Africa Finally
destruction of the heavy-water plant and associated barges crippled the Germanrsquos atomic
weapons program in 194355 The most notable resistance operations took place in support
of the D-Day landings by disrupting German reserves logistics and by providing
intelligence and guides to advancing Allied forces As Foot highlights ldquoAll told about
10000 tons of warlike stores were put into France by SOE 4000 of them before and
6000 after the landing in Normandy arms for about half a million men and a fair amount
of explosivesrdquo56
53Foot 26-27
54Morris
55Ibid
56Foot 222-3 33
The British employed about 5000 SOE operators during the war the largest
contingent going to France and Yugoslavia followed by Greece Italy Belgium Poland
Albania Abyssinia Burma Malaya Scandinavia Switzerland Hungary Romania Siam
the Dutch East Indies and lesser operations in Turkey and China57 Resistance forces
supported by the SOE while not decisive shaped the battle space by tying up numerous
Axis divisions in each country In 1942 the exiled governments of the Czechs Dutch
French Norwegians and Poles suggested to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff that
there should be a single headquarters to direct irregular operations in occupied Europe
As Foot notes ldquo[they] were each astonished to receive his reply that such a body had
already existed for almost two years [which] lsquoleft the Allied commanders breathless
SOE was so secret that its name and existence had never been disclosed to themrdquo58 The
most extreme example of these combined operations was in Poland at the maximum
reach of SOErsquos air branch Polish resistance received 485 successful drops during the
war three hundred SOE operatives and twenty-eight couriers all but five which were
Polish and 600 tons of war material59
In January of 1944 SOE and the US OSS which was modeled after the SOE in
1942 merged headquarters for the invasion called the Special Forces Headquarters In
1946 the SOE rivalry with MI6 ended with many of the SOE networks to include its
world wide communications being shutdown or transferred to MI6 under Menzies Thus
ended the SOE
57Ibid 62 172-242
58Ibid 152
59Ibid 191
34
Special Operations Executive Summary
While some would argue that SOErsquos contributions were negligible in the overall
scheme of the war they are best summed up in a letter from General Dwight D
Eisenhower to Gubbins on 31 May 1945
In no previous war and in no other theatre during this war have resistance forces been so closely harnessed to the main military effort While no final assessment of the operational value of resistance action has yet been completed I consider that the disruption of enemy rail communications the harassing of German road moves and the continual and increasing strain placed on the German war economy and internal security services throughout occupied Europe by the organized forces of resistance played a very considerable part in our complete and final victory60
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
SOE operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements It was
not covert per say since it was generally known that the Allies were conducting these
operations The SOE operations were shaping operational versus decisive supporting the
Allied efforts before and after D-Day Lastly the operational approach was for the most
part combat support with each element conducting combat advising However as the
networks grew and cadres were trained by the SOE operators as in the case of the Jockey
network the individual cells conducted operations coordinated by the Special Forces
Headquarters but not directly supervised by the SOE operatives thus the approach was
more direct than combat support
60ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo
35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare
Introduction
With Americarsquos sudden entrance into World War II the US scrambled to gain a
war footing and mobilize for war One of its weakest areas was the lack of capabilities to
gather strategic intelligence This weakness was highlighted by the failures of any
coordinated intelligence effort to provide early warning of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor in December 1941 The US looked to the British for help with establishing an
intelligence capability Roy Godson points out that for ldquoall intents and purposes US
security [was] being run for [the US] at the Presidentrsquos request by the Britishrdquo61 The
British agent of influence was William Stephenson of the British Security Coordination
who had the ear to the President in much the same way the British had influenced US
commitment in World War I Stephenson would help the legendary William ldquoWild Billrdquo
Donovan organize the first American centralized intelligence organization initially called
the Coordinator of Information (COI) on 11 July 1941 which in 1942 became the
OSS62
The COI organization had three sub-branches all focused on intelligence
gathering The Radio News Branch the Research and Analysis Branch and the Visual
Present Branch Eighty to ninety percent of the intelligence gathered by the Research and
Analysis Branch came from open sources such as its Division of Special Information
Library of Congress63 When COI was transformed into the OSS organization in 1942
61Godson 23
62Ibid
63Brook 89
36
the organizational changes were significant First the organizationrsquos main operational
elements were split into two deputy directorates the Deputy Director of Strategic
Services Operations and Deputy Director of Intelligence Services The Strategic Services
Operations were further sub-divided into six subordinate elements Special Operations
Morale Operations Maritime Units Special Projects Field Experimental Unit and
Operational Group Command The Intelligence Services was sub-divided into five units
Secret Intelligence X-2 or Counterintelligence Research and Analysis Foreign
Nationalities and Censorship and Documents
As Lawrence McDonald noted ldquoGeneral Donovan believed that the principal
contribution of OSS would be strategic intelligence which is the basis for the formation
of national policyrdquo64 It would reason then that the primary effort for collection and
analysis would fall upon the offices of the Director of Intelligence however McDonald
explains that ldquoSome of the most valuable information contributed by the OSS was
the tactical or field intelligence often provided by the Special Operations Branch (SO)
teams working behind enemy lines with resistance groupsrdquo65
Before the COI initially lacked any organization or doctrine for conducting
clandestine and covert operations it would learn from and copy a great deal of the
infrastructure already established by the British SOE and MI6 This relationship benefited
both countries For the US the benefits included intelligence training and the vast
experience base that the British had in place with MI6 and then with the SOE For the
British the US brought money and resources that the British were able to benefit from
64McDonald 93
65Ibid
37
due to its close relationship The British at first were protective of their operations and
agents in occupied Europe fearful that the Americarsquos inexperience could harm their
current operations Over time these relationships strengthened although there were still
some problems depending on political constraints or desires that one country had over the
other
Special Operation Branch
Lawrence McDonald provides an excellent description of the Special Operation
(SO) Branch ldquoThe foremost concern of SO teams and missions was liaison with the
resistance providing weapons and supplies to the indigenous underground forces
training them and planning and coordinating their sabotage with Allied operationsrdquo66
The SO was also responsible for some collateral activities including gathering
operational and strategic targeting information and for recovering downed Allied
aircrews67 SO took place in Europe and Asia with operational patterns and methods for
supporting resistance movements much like the SOE As Michael Warner highlights
ldquoThis emphasis on guerrilla warfare and sabotage fit with William Donovanrsquos vision of
an offensive in depth in which saboteurs guerrillas commandos and agents behind
enemy lines would support the armyrsquos advancerdquo68
66Ibid
67Ibid
68Michael Warner The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000) available from httpwwwciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet accessed on 4 December 2005
38
It was this common ground between the British SOE and US SO that allowed the
first bonds to be strengthened The Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff decided
that the SOE and SO would operate together an idea from which were born the
Jedburghs
The Jedburghs
The Jedburghs dropped into Belgium Holland and France on or after the
Normandy invasion to support the Allied efforts as they moved inland The Jedburghs or
Jeds were specially-trained three-man teams composed of different nationalities to assist
local resistance forces during the final weeks of German occupation Of the three men on
team one was an enlisted radio operator with the other two being officers One of the
officers was native to the country the team deployed to while the other officer was either
British SOE or American OSS The Jeds primary task was to disrupt ldquoGerman
reinforcements to the Normandy beachhead or the Allied landings in southern
Francerdquo69 They also provided valuable tactical intelligence and were able to provide
guides and security for advancing Allied units The efforts of the Jedburghs and their
resistance counterparts may have kept eight German divisions from reaching the
beachheads70
The after-action review of the Jeds highlight the growing pains in the evolution of
the integration of SO and SOE supported resistance groups within the overall
conventional campaign plan A common problem was the need to be infiltrated into the
69Lt Col Will Irvin (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 (New York NY PublicAffairs 2005) 236
70Ibid
39
operational area weeks or months early to capitalize on the full potential of resistance
groups Infiltrating on or after D-Day did not allow the Jeds enough time to train their
counterparts or develop intelligence networks Because of this they were not able operate
at their optimum capability The flow of information was lacking and timeliness of
reports affected ground operations Senior conventional commanders were unaware of
the capabilities of the Jedburghs and their resistance groups for providing accurate
intelligence guides and interpreters These operations generated so much information
that ldquothe SFHQ [Special Forces Headquarters] message centers were receiving so much
traffic that it became impossible to analyze act upon and disseminate informationrdquo71
Despite these difficulties the Jedburgh concept was as Lewis point out ldquoahead of its
time One of the more important successes for the Jedburgh operations was the
psychological impact the teams had on the citizens of occupied France [as] harbinger
of liberation and a call to actionrdquo72 With the end of the European theater the OSS was
redeployed to the Pacific and continued their exploits
Detachment 101
The most famous OSS detachment of the Burma campaign was Detachment 101
or DET 101 The Burma campaign centered around lines of communications such as the
Ledo-Burma Road which had to be secured in order to allow the Allies to reestablish
contact with the Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek The mission was to gain
control of the Ledo-Burma Road from Japanrsquos 15th Army and was as noted by Warner
71Lewis 62
72Ibid 65-66
40
ldquothe closest to realizing General Donovanrsquos original vision of lsquostrategicrsquo support to
regular combat operationsrdquo73
Donovan had been trying to establish an OSS presence in the China-Burma-India
theater and proposed a plan for using agents to sabotage Japanese rear areas Donovan
took advantage of General Stillwellrsquos lack of ldquonordquo as an opportunity to get operations
going before Stilwell could stop the mission The mission was given to a Captain who
had served under Stillwell After standing up DET 101 rushing through training of
which little was applicable to the Far East DET 101 arrived in theater only to find
Stillwell waffling on DET 101rsquos employment Stilwell did not have the resources to drive
the Japanese from the area around the north Burmese city of Myitkyina which was
hampering air operations and the completion of an alternate route Stilwell gave DET 101
the mission
After some difficulty getting into the area of operation DET 101 infiltrated and
began to transition from sabotage to guerrilla warfare but more importantly were able to
develop an extensive intelligence network that provided Stillwell with valuable
intelligence74 With less the 120 Americans at any one time DET 101 had recruited over
11000 native Kachins75 By the end of DET 101rsquos mission they rescued over 400
downed pilots and provided eighty percent of 10th Air Forcersquos targets76 In addition
73Warner
74David W Hogan Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II (Washington DC Department of the Army 1992) 99-106
75Warner
76Hogan 111
41
DET 101 had successfully developed an indigenous force that fixed two Japanese
divisions during the final Allied offensive in Burma77
The Operational Groups
Operational Groups (OGs) were developed to conduct behind-the-lines
commando operations and were composed of US Army soldiers General Donovanrsquos
concept for the OGs was based on his ldquobelief that the rich ethnic makeup of our country
would provide second generation American soldiers with language facility who could
be parachuted into enemy occupied territory to harass the enemy and encourage local
resistance organizationsrdquo78 They were designated to fight in uniform and had no
connection to the OSS thus protecting them from being shot as spies if captured79
The OGs were organized fifteen man detachments with two officers and thirteen
noncommissioned officers They were all trained in physical conditioning land
navigation night operations explosive training weapons light infantry tactics and hand
to hand fighting Two member of the OG received additional training one as a radio
operator and the other as a medic Depending on their likely area of operation the OGs
received additional training such as ski training special parachute training or maritime
training80
77John Prados Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf (Chicago IL Elephant Paperbacks 1996) 16
78Art Frizzell ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg overviewhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
79Warner
80Frizzell
42
The first operational OGs were infiltrated from Algiers into Italy to work with the
local resistance and harass the German 90th Panzer Division Other OGs were parachuted
into Italy to help recover US prisoners as well as a blind drop into Italy to give the Italian
command the details of the Armistice and cease actions against the Allies As the
Germans withdrew some resistance elements were liberated and were ready to return to
the North to harass the withdrawing Germans By mid-1945 when the Germans
surrendered there were ten OG missions totaling 120 men in northern Italy81 For up to
two weeks the OGs and their resistance elements governed their areas until Allied
military governments arrived During this time OGs had to maintain order and receive
drops of humanitarian items for the local populous82
In 1943 another OG was stood up at the request of the Greek government in exile
to assist Greek guerrillas hiding in the mountains The mission for this OG which arrived
in Greece in April of 1944 was to delay and harass 80000 German troops withdrawing
from Greece The British also participated and provided the Raider Support Regiment83
The OG operations in Yugoslavia were one part of the British-led Allied efforts in
Yugoslavia The purpose for the Allied effort in Yugoslavia was conducting as many
offensive operations as possible against German troop concentrations The operational
base for this operation was a British garrison which included British Commandos a
Raider Support Regiment some naval and air support and a number of Yugoslavian
81Albert Materazzi ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwww ossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
82Ibid
83ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
43
resistance units all together totaling several thousand84 There are three categories of OG
missions in Yugoslavia mainland operations reconnaissance patrols and island
operations The mainland operations for OSS were unsuccessful and stopped after only
two failed attempts85
The island operations began in January of 1944 and were aimed at conducting
raids to inflict casualties on German garrisons and outposts These OG raiding parties
were at time large and combined efforts with other British and partisan units For
example the first mission against Hvar Island had 33 OGs 150 British Commandos and
75 partisans while others such a linear ambush on Korcula Island in April of 1944 had a
party of only seven OGs and a few partisans The size of this operation grew especially
when aimed at relieving pressure on Tito during German offensives One extremely large
operation included the British Commandos a British Infantry battalion the Raider
Support Regiment and an undisclosed number of partisans with OG units A and B
serving as flank security and liaison between the partisans and the British artillery The
mission succeeded in drawing the Germans from along the coastal regions as well as
another German division from the interior and is regarded as successful in relieving some
pressure from Titorsquos partisans86
84ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavian html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
85ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo available from httpwwwossog orgyugo-mainlandhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
86ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
44
The French OG group was originally composed of 200 volunteers The French
OGs were ready to deploy at the completion of their training in the fall of 1943 but they
were delayed because military leaders in conventional commands were reluctant to
deploy OGs for lack of understanding of their employment In an attempt to remedy this
misunderstanding the French OGs participated in field training exercises with airborne
units from Fort Bragg North Carolina in December of 1943 The French OGs were still
in limbo conducting environmental training in Virginia and Colorado when they
received orders attaching the groups to the Seventh Army in Algiers They arrived in
Algiers and were forced to wait once again until finally being assigned missions in
support of the Normandy invasion
There were two operational groups deployed into France the French OG and the
Norwegian OG The French OG flew from England nearly a month after the invasion
parachuted into France and operated north of Lyons The Norwegian OG flew from
Algiers and operated in southern France south of Lyons The total number of teams
deployed to France was twenty all with the missions to cut enemy lines of
communications attack vital enemy installations organize train and boost the morale
and efforts of local resistance elements and to gather intelligence for the advancing
Allied Armies
The Norwegian OG which was stationed and trained at Camp Hale Colorado
was made up of 100 officers and noncommissioned officers In December 1943 the
Norwegian OG was moved to England and was assigned to the OSS SO Headquarters
subordinate to the Scandinavian Section As was previously stated the Norwegian OGs
deployed to France and upon the liberation of France the Norwegian OG was reduced in
45
size As the Norwegian OG was being drawn down Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces
became concerned with 150000 German troops that were in northern Norway that
intelligence estimated would be moved south to defend Germany SHAEF wanted to
ensure that the Germans were forced to take sea routes so the OGrsquos mission would be to
disrupt the rail lines The commanding officer for the operation split the OG into two
units identified as NORSO I and NORSO II for Norwegian Special Operations87
NORSO I consisted of three officers and thirty enlisted soldiers and was the main
effort NORSO II consisted of one officer and eighteen enlisted soldiers and was to serve
as the reserve prepared to reinforce NORSO I if necessary or to complete a separate
mission The NORSO I target was identified as the Nordland Railway more specifically
the Grana Bridge plus lesser targets along the line The operation was plagued with
numerous difficulties from weather to deadly plane crashes however it did go on in less
than optimal conditions They successfully destroyed two and a half kilometers of track
disrupting the troop movements A month later they were told the Germans had
capitulated and NORSO I and II then participated in the disarmament procedures and
performed policing duties in the areas of German surrender88
Finally the Chinese OG mission was much different than what the OG missions
in Europe The mission entailed ldquothe formation training equipping and attachment of
87ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
88ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
46
American personnel for twenty Chinese Commandosrdquo89 This mission was generated
from an agreement that Chinese divisions led by veteran Americans would be more
effective than a regular Chinese division The agreement was made in January of 1945
and the nucleus of the OG personnel for this mission was the recently redeployed French
OG elements of the Norwegian OG and a third OG that had conducted amphibious
operations in Burma Additional officers and enlisted men were brought from
replacement centers in the US raising the total number of US personnel to 160 officers
and 230 enlisted all under the command of a lieutenant colonel Each Commando unit
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 8th 9th and 10th consisted of 154 Chinese and 19 Americans The
units were task organized into a headquarters three rifle sections a 60 millimeter mortar
section a light machine gun section and a demolition section In the initial plans it was
thought that there would be 3000 Chinese troops but due to physical readiness only a
quarter were available In the eighth week training cycle the Commandos showed major
improvements and for the Chinese being selected and becoming a Commando were
achievements to be proud of Seven of the Commando units conducted operations with
hostilities ending before the others could be stood up and trained90
Office of Strategic Services Summary
The OSS had gained valuable experience first from the British who taught
Donovanrsquos agency everything they had learned conducting clandestine and covert
operations in the first years of the war The partnership between SOE and OSS helped the
89John Hamblet ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo available from httpwwwossog orgchinahtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
90Ibid
47
OSS get through its fits and starts Donovanrsquos vision made the OSS an organization that
at the end of the war was an organization with an extremely effective strategic
intelligence and unconventional warfare capability Donovan had opened the Pandorarsquos
Box of irregular warfare for which the politicians and conventional military leaders were
not ready and contributed to the OSS being disbanded at the end of the war However
with the post-World War II environment looming it would not take very long before it
became evident that these types intelligence and unconventional warfare operations
would become the norm of covert activity during the Cold War
Demobilization of the different resistance groups throughout the world ran the
gambit of no demobilization and just turning the elements over to the reinstalled
government to collecting up arms and returning the resistance members back to their preshy
war lives Will Irwin provides a glimpse into the minds of the exile governments with
respect to resistance elements and their post-war status in this case the French ldquoSpecial
Force Headquarters received [a] Jedburgh message requesting a parachute drop of
arms and ammunition to the Paris resistance But de Gaullersquos London-based
commander of the [French Forces of the Interior] postponed the operation in hopes
that the arrival of Allied forces in the city would preclude the need to further arm the
Paris resistance because it was predominantly communistrdquo91 The fear at the time was
that the communist resistance would take over Paris with French commanders ldquoanxious
to install a provisional noncommunist government in the city as soon as it fellrdquo92 This is
91Irwin 145
92Ibid
48
exactly what they did after Paris was liberated ldquo[wasting] no time in occupying
government buildings and establishing political controlrdquo93
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
OSS operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements Like
the SOE the OSS operations were shaping operational supporting the advance of Allied
troops Finally the operational approach was combat with each element conducting
combat advising or in the case of the operational groups conducting their own operations
As with the SOE some resistance groups they received direct support in the way of
weapons and supplies but no combat advisory support The operational groups were
somewhat different in their application more commando-like and probably low-
visibility versus clandestine in nature Depending on their mission profile they may have
conducted unilateral direct action missions special reconnaissance or working with
resistance elements conducted unconventional warfare
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations
Introduction
At the conclusion of the war President Trumann who disliked Donovan and his
agency gave the order to disband OSS immediately The SO capability was dropped the
Research and Analysis Section went to the State Department and everything else went to
the War Department Because the Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy had saved SI
and X-2 this would constitute a peacetime intelligence service McCloy then named this
93Ibid 145-6
49
organization the Strategic Services Unit which was then confirmed by directive from the
Secretary of War Michael Warner explains that the Executive Order also directed the
Secretary of War to ldquoliquidaterdquo OSS activities that were not in line with national
interests Seeing that most of the work that Donovan had accomplished with respect to
developing an irregular warfare capability all of it was counter to the conventional-
minded military leaders who were happy to get rid of this threatening concept for war
that they considered ungentlemanly anyway
Within two years a new organization no longer in the War Department was
established by the President and Congress initially called the Central Intelligence Group
The CIG became the CIA with signing of the National Security Act of 194794 The 1947
Act gave the CIA the responsibility for coordinating all intelligence activities within the
US government including gathering analyzing and distributing intelligence products A
follow-on act in 1947 provided the CIA with ldquoconfidential fiscal and administrative
proceduresrdquo which was appropriate for the kind of work the CIA was conducting95
With the end of World War II the Cold War was beginning to emerge and
communist ideology was beginning to spread In this conflict in which both sides had
nuclear weapons they could threaten each other but could not resort to war as had been
known in the past Now the US and the USSR jockeyed for position and began to give
covert support to governments and indigenous resistance forces to influence countries
and regions in order to expand control One of the tools that had been looked upon by the
94Warner
95Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd) 2
50
regular military with such disdain supporting resistance forces would now play a major
role in the Cold War
Common sense told many politicians within the Truman administration that
covert actions should be the responsibility of the military Their argument seemed easy-shy
during World War II the military was responsible for covert and clandestine operations
such as deception psychological operations subversion sabotage ldquobehind-the-linesrdquo
unconventional warfare to support indigenous elements raids and even assassinations
However as was mentioned earlier the uniformed leaders within the Pentagon did not
want to get stuck with a controversial and unorthodox method of warfare and
enthusiastically gave it up to the CIA ldquo[JCS] apparently was fearful of what it perceived
to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in subrosa [sic] cloak-andshy
dagger activitiesrdquo96 Although the CIA retained control of the peace time operations they
had wanted not only the covert paramilitary activities during peacetime as stipulated by
National Security Council 102 in June 1948 but in wartime as well97
However in the early 1950s the DOD would once again develop a capability to
support indigenous resistance forces with the stipulation that it would only do this in
wartime leaving the peacetime operations to the CIA The Special Forces were born and
prepared for operations behind enemy lines in Germany should the Cold War turn hot It
is also notable that the term chosen by the CIA for support to insurgency was
96Bank 161
97Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Psychological and Unconventional Warfare 1941-1952 (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2002) 69
51
ldquoparamilitary operationsrdquo which John Prados defines as ldquoThe type of clandestine
operations that creates forces resembling regular military unitsrdquo98
The Three Disciplines
The ldquothree disciplinesrdquo within the CIA are intelligence collection and analysis
counterintelligence or counterespionage and covert action99 As William Daugherty
points out the first two operations collection and counterintelligence are meant to be
clandestine in other words ldquothe actual operations their participants and their results are
intended to remain hidden from viewrdquo100
Intelligence collection is the collection of raw intelligence data from any number
of sources including human and technical means This is the classic form of intelligence
work and the primary role of the CIA and the one that it is most famous for This raw
intelligence is then analyzed and is provided to the policy makers as ldquofinishedrdquo
intelligence upon which they can make decisions regarding threats or intentions of other
nations or non-nation actors
Counterintelligence or counterespionage functions to deny an advantage to its
adversaries This can be done in numerous ways such as turning foreign intelligence
agents to provide information on their fellow spies or ensuring adequate protections are
in place to protect sensitive information Both collection and counterintelligence share
many of the same techniques and requirements
98Prados 17
99Daugherty 9
100Ibid 12
52
The final discipline and the one that applies to paramilitary operations is covert
action Daugherty defined covert action simply as ldquoinfluencerdquo--influencing foreign
audience in the case of paramilitary operations by using covert military operations
preferably through a third-party actor101 Covert action results are visible but the
perpetrator cannot be identified Daugherty further highlights the application of this to the
US government by quoting the 1981 Executive Order 12333 ldquospecial activities [covert
operations] conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are
planned and executed so that the role of the United States government is not apparent or
acknowledged publiclyrdquo102 Thus with respect to paramilitary operations the indigenous
or surrogate force provides the ldquofrontrdquo to the operations and keeps the action or influence
from being directly attributable to the US As Daugherty explains ldquothe covert aspect is
that the lsquosponsorrsquo (ie the government behind the program) remains hidden leaving the
observers to believe that the actors are indigenous citizens acting entirely of their own
volition in events that are local in originrdquo103
Interestingly the first official definition of covert action was articulated by
President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in Executive Order (EO) 12333 The definition reads
[S]pecial activities conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly and functions in support of such activities but which are not intended to influence United States political processes public opinion policies or media and do not include diplomatic
101Ibid
102Daugherty 13
103Ibid
53
activities or the collection or production of intelligence and related support functions104
Other key points of Executive Order 12333 are that intelligence activities are not
primarily covert action covert actions must not be conducted within the US and ldquoit
explicitly and unambiguously assigns all peacetime covert action missions to the
CIArdquo105
The executive order has worked well enough that it was amended into a federal
statute in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991 The federal statute defines covert
action as
[A]n activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political economic or military conditions abroad where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly but does not include (1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence (2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities106
One of the confusing points of Executive Order 12333 is the use of the words special
activities versus covert action At first glance they seem similar but they do not have as
much in common as it would seem Daugherty explain that included in the special
activities rubric are
[P]rograms such as training of foreign military security and intelligence services [which] have been especially important to presidents not because the programs seek change in a hostile regime but because they work to preserve a friendly regime107
104Ibid
105Ibid 13-14
106Ibid 14
107Ibid 15
54
So now that these two definitions show that covert action and special activities are related
but not the same thing Unlike covert actions special activities ldquoare not intended to
produce any overt event to influence an audience but instead are operations that are
meant to remain clandestine in all aspectsrdquo108 With respect to this thesis paramilitary
operations are thus covert unconventional warfare operations to influence such as
overthrowing a government and special activities are clandestine foreign internal defense
operations which could be used when a foreign government did not want overt US
support and training
Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability
Since the end of World War II the US military has not had the lead role in any
covert action programs aimed at supporting indigenous forces The military supported
CIA covert operations at times such as providing training teams for operations
According to Bob Woodward Special Forces soldiers accompanied CIA paramilitary
operatives into Northern Iraq before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom which provides
an example of once easily definable peace or war lines of separation becoming harder to
discern109
William Daugherty provides a list of reasons why DOD has not been able to
conduct peacetime covert operations
DOD does not possess nor has it ever possessed the statutory authority to conduct classic covert action except
108Ibid 16
109Bob Woodward Plan of Attack (New York NY Simon and Schuster 2004) 208-209
55
During a war formally declared by Congress
During any period covered by a report to Congress under the War Powers Act
When DOD is specifically tasked by the President because it is determined that the military is more likely to achieve particular objectives
CIA already has existing infrastructure to conduct covert actions such as its fleet of civilian-registered aircraft and maritime vessels
CIA already has recruited agents third-country nationals to carry out the required operational and support activities in foreign countries
DOD covert action forces would either have to give up protection of their Geneva Convention rights or any covert actions that were discovered they could be considered an act of war
CIA already has a presence in many of the 190 sovereign nations in the world which give them long operational reach support and clandestine infrastructure
CIA has almost instantaneous reaction or response time in any crisis situation to include the capability to travel in alias under civilian cover and with non-US travel documents
CIA has a core of career covert action specialists in each of the four broad categories of covert action ndash propaganda political action paramilitary and information warfare110
The obvious advantages currently go to the CIA however these same capabilities could
be developed within DOD with help of the CIA who is reluctant to share any of their
ldquotoysrdquo as Daugherty alludes to throughout his book
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations
CIA covert operations were widespread throughout the Cold War While some of
these programs remain classified there are a few notable paramilitary actions and special
110Daugherty 62-69
56
activities that provide an interesting comparison to Special Forces operations during this
same period As William Daugherty points out
From Trumanrsquos time through the Nixon years covert action programs served only two purposes they were intended either to stop the spread of Communism to countries that were not under the Soviet thumb by strengthening or supporting whatever regimes were in power or to weaken Communist or Communist-supported government by lsquoeroding their internal supportrsquo111
From the Nixon years on covert actions began to be used against non-Communist
targets
Eastern Europe 1949-1956
With the Soviet occupation of the Eastern European satellite nations the US and
Britain began a subversion campaign almost immediately The Ukraine was the first
country the MI6 and CIA actively sought to raise anti-Soviet resistance capabilities In
1945 MI6 was able to reestablish contact with the leader of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists When the State Department agreed to proceed with support the
mission was given to the foreign intelligence bureau and the Office of Policy
Coordination responsible for paramilitary operations112
The Office of Policy Coordination started numerous training camps in West
Germany to train Eastern eacutemigreacutes from the Soviet Union and Ukraine The first group of
agents was infiltrated into western Ukraine by parachute in 1949 The long-term plan was
to infiltrate 2000 agents throughout the Eastern Bloc countries The mission of the agents
111Ibid 124
112Peter Harclerode Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden (London Cassell and Company 2001) 5-7
57
was to report Soviet preparations for offensive operations against the west and support
resistance organizations to disrupt any Soviet operations against the west113
The CIA also infiltrated agents into Lithuania which in 1944 had 30000
resistance members of the group the ldquoForest Brotherhoodrdquo Latvia was thought to have
14000 well-armed fighters114 However none of these operations was able to keep an
agent alive for any period of time after his infiltration most succumbing to immediate
arrest or death For the CIA and Secret Intelligence Service no goals had been reached
despite a large expenditure of money and resources Daugherty offers these observations
on why these operations failed
[U]nrealistic goal of lsquorolling backrsquo Communist domination organizers mistakenly assumed that eacutemigreacute groups could be made secure from Soviet penetrations [and] Soviet military and intelligence units conducted formidable counter-insurgency operations in the target countries relentlessly hunting down the eacutemigreacute guerilla force Last these operations were betrayed by [a] KGB double agent115
Albania offered another opportunity for use of unconventional warfare this time
aimed at the regime of Enver Hoxha ldquothe dictator and secretary-general of the Albanian
Communist Partyrdquo116 The goal of this combined British and US effort as Peter
Harclerode explains ldquowas to wrest the country from the Sovietrsquosand assist the
establishment of a democratic pro-Western governmentrdquo117 The concept for this
113Ibid
114Ibid 21
115Daugherty 127
116Harclerode 35
117Ibid
58
operation was to instigate an uprising to overthrow Enver Hoxha with operations taking
place from 1949 to 1954 For this operation 250 Albanians were recruited by the exiled
Albanian National Council which would comprise Company 4000 and led by an
American officer Three platoons were raised and trained in varying levels of guerrilla
warfare and then parachuted into Albania Although able to infiltrate members of the
company most were quickly captured or killed by the effective internal security
apparatus of the Hoxha regime By August of 1954 it was decided to disband Company
4000 and dismantle the training school located in Western Germany The remaining
recruits were demobilized and then were dispersed throughout the US Britain and other
locations A CIA officer is quoted by Peter Harclerode providing significant insight into
the lessons learned from this operation
The Albanian operation was the first and only attempt by Washington to unseat a Communist regime within the Soviet orbit by paramilitary means It taught a clear lesson to the war planners Even a weak regime could not be overthrown by covert paramilitary means alone118
The activities against the Soviet Union and its satellite states in the early years of
the Cold War provide and interesting beginning to post-World War II unconventional
warfare All of these efforts were plainly unconventional warfare aimed at using
resistance organizations to disrupt of Soviet expansion and if war broke out to act as
shaping operations forcing the commitment of Soviet combat power to rear area security
These operations were all indirect using training areas in third-party countries and then
infiltrating these elements into the target country unilaterally with the radio being the
only connection to their CIA handlers
118Ibid 71
59
Korea
Korea provides a great example of two simultaneous unconventional warfare
efforts one by the CIA with a cover name of Joint Advisory Commission Korea and
other efforts by of conventional military officers with the most prominent effort being
that assigned to the Guerrilla Division of the 8240th Army Unit The conventional
military cadres had little or no formal unconventional warfare training or experiences119
These efforts were not coordinated until a year into the conflict when the Far East
Command which in 1953 would be redesignated as United Nations Partisan Infantry
Korea established the Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea to
synchronize these unconventional warfare efforts120 Before the establishment of the
Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea a single officer Colonel John
McGee who had worked with the Filipino guerrillas in World War II was assigned to the
Far East Command G-3 Operations as the sole member of the Miscellaneous Division
His initial task was ldquoto prepare a staff study on the possibilities of conducting guerrilla
operations against the North Koreans using some of the refugees from the northrdquo121
The CIArsquos mission was to ldquostep up pressure on the Chinese Communists by
supporting guerrilla movements on the mainland of China especially along lines of
communicationsrdquo122 The CIA successfully established a network of covert intelligence
119Ibid 179 and Col Ben S Malcom (ret) and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea (Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996) xi
120Malcom and Martz 14-15 27
121Ibid 15
122Major General (ret) John K Singlaub Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century (New York NY Summit Books 1991) 181
60
bases along the North Korean coast from which Korean agents could be dispatched
However the operation was never able to establish any significant resistance networks
The 8420th was able to establish a substantial resistance effort primarily due to
location and a large refugee population of willing supporters but the overall effects are
arguable since the resistance was rewarded for their actions based on their own reports
truthful or not Part of the operational constraints was that no American could operate in
North Korea due to the political risks which made it difficult for the American cadres to
exploit the efforts of the resistance123 In some cases there were documented successes
by American advisors such as then 1st Lieutenant Ben Malcolm that had special
permission or ldquoclandestinelyrdquo went ashore not having the consent of their higher
headquarters
The motivation for much of the resistance effort was the belief that the United
Nations would conduct a counteroffensive against the Chinese As Ben Malcolm
explains the assumptions being that when the offensive happened ldquothe partisans would
prove invaluable at their harassment and interdiction of enemy forces It was classic
unconventional warfare strategy using the partisans as an auxiliary to conventional
forces on the attack helping to shape the battlefieldrdquo124 An example of the effectiveness
of some of these units such as the 8086th Army unit which in less than a year claimed to
ldquohave conducted 710 operations killed 9095 and wounded 4802 and captured 385rdquo
123Ibid 183
124Malcom and Martz 17 61
and in the process destroyed thirty-seven road bridges twelve railway bridges and
twelve tunnels and seven hundred weaponsrdquo125
Demobilization of the partisan forces was called Operation Quicksilver and called
for the ldquointegration of the partisans into [Republic of Korea] unitsrdquo126 As Ben Malcolm
explains ldquoQuicksilver called for those partisans with at least two years of service to be
honorably discharged and given their uniforms mess gear four blankets two hundred
pounds of rice and transportation to their city of choice in South Koreardquo127 Those opting
to enlist for two years got the same incentives plus an extra one hundred pounds of rice
For their transfer from American to South Korean control the US only required them to
ldquoturn in their weapon and for some unexplained reason their canteen cuprdquo128 However
less than half of the 22000 partisans disappeared in a year and as Ben Malcolm
surmises some went south and some ostensibly went north with some elements still
requesting support by radio ldquowell after the armistice was signedrdquo129
The unconventional warfare operation in Korea can be summarized as covert
shaping operations aimed at disrupting the Chinese forces in support of the larger United
Nations mission thus these operations were shaping operations With regards to the
operational approach of these operations they are mostly direct support with only a few
examples of sanctioned combat advisory support
125Ibid 26
126Ibid 190
127Ibid 190-1
128Ibid 191
129Ibid
62
Tibet
In the case of Tibet five years elapsed between the beginning of the Chinese
invasion and the Tibetan uprising in 1956 President Eisenhower authorized covert
support to the unorganized ldquoTibetan internal resistance movementrdquo130 The intended
effect was ldquoto confront thwart or harassrdquo the Chinese Communist government The
program began in 1956 and ended by President Richard Nixon thirteen years later in
1969131 While eventually unsuccessful certain aspects of this covert action are
intriguing Beginning in December of 1956 an operation codenamed ST CIRCUS
commenced with a small groups of handpicked Tibetan resistance members were
exfiltrated out of the country by the CIA and taken to different training bases in the
Pacific and later America132 As Peter Harclerode explains
At a training camp established by the CIA the six Tibetans underwent four and a half months of extensive instruction in guerrilla warfare In addition to small arms they trained in the use of light support weapons including the 57mm recoilless rifle and 60mm mortar and well schooled in tactics fieldcraft map-reading navigation demolitions mine-laying sabotage booby traps and first aid They also received instruction on in intelligence-gathering skills and in [long range encrypted communications]133
These teams also learned to parachute and establish drop zones for receiving personnel
and equipment134 These teams were then parachuted back into Tibet to organize
130Daugherty 144
131Ibid
132Harclerode 348-9
133Ibid 350
134Ibid
63
resistance forces Although the program generated mixed results the concept was a
proven means of conducting indirect support
The program was shut down in 1974 after relations with China had warmed
during the Nixon administrations The Tibetans were left feeling ldquodiscarded by the
United States which no longer needed them now that they had served their purposerdquo135
There was no demobilization instead the US ldquoterminatedrdquo support not only paramilitary
assistance but political recognitions and support in the United Nations and the financial
support to the exiled government136
This indirect unconventional warfare program was also covert and unique in that
the majority of the training took place in the continental US at different locations but all
under extreme secrecy This program was a strategic shaping operation aimed at
indirectly influencing China
Cuba
Almost immediately after President Kennedy entered the White House in January
of 1961 he authorized the CIA to begin to conduct covert operations against the Castro
Government One element of this extensive covert action program that included
psychological operations and sabotage was a paramilitary effort This paramilitary
infamously known as the ldquoBay of Pigsrdquo would end in tragedy and failure The plan was
135Ibid 393
136Ibid
64
to conduct an invasion of Cuba using exiled Cuban resistance members and overthrow
Castro The training for this operation took place in a Guatemala a third-party country137
Regardless of the failures of this operation it does provide an interesting
unconventional warfare case study for analysis With respect to the operational signature
it may have begun as a covert operation but the supporting efforts such as ldquoair strikes
from US Navy and Marine squadrons on nearby aircraft carriersrdquo would have definitely
changed the signature and thus the deniability of US involvement As to whether this was
a decisive or shaping operation its failure masks the true intent--a decisive overthrow of
Castro This operation began as an indirect unconventional warfare effort with training
conducted in a third party country and arms and equipment provided by the CIA Had
the air support been provided as promised then this operation would have taken on a
direct or combat role depending on the level of naval air involvement While this was a
definite covert action gone bad operation it still provides a great lesson in the strengths
and weaknesses of unconventional warfare
Laos
The operation in Laos in the 1950rsquos and 1960rsquos is often incorrectly identified as
unconventional warfare when in fact it is more correctly a covert action in this case a
special activity to increase the Laotian government ability of defeating internal and
external threats138 Richard L Holm a former CIA officer describes the situation in
Laos ldquoLao communist forces known as the Pathet Lao (PL) were challenging the
137Daugherty 155
138Major Dean S Newman ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
65
governmentrsquos Royal Lao Army (FAR) throughout the country Although badly organized
and poorly trained and equipped the PL was bolstered by support from North Vietnam
whose units were call the VC (Vietnamese Communists)rdquo139 As Richard Holm explains
ldquoThe CIArsquos paramilitary efforts in Laos were divided roughly along geographic linesrdquo
north central and southern Laos and involved working with different tribal and ethnic
groupsrdquo140 Although the Pathet Lao threat to the Laotian government for the US
government greater concern was the North Vietnamese use of eastern Laos to support its
efforts in South Vietnam
The initial programs were under the auspices of the US Agency for International
Development and its advisors before becoming a covert action to ldquobolsterrdquo the Laotian
government141 Special Forces were also involved in White Star initially under the
command of Lieutenant Colonel ldquoBullrdquo Simons legendary for leading Son Tay Raid--the
prisoner-of-war rescue mission--some ten years later142 In the original program twelve
teams were under the auspices of the Agency for International Development Project
Evaluation Office later renamed the Military Assistance Advisory Group The effort was
initially called Operation Ambidextrous later to become Operation White Star143
139Richard L Holms ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 available from httpwwwodcigov csistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet accessed on 18 June 2005
140Ibid
141Ibid
142Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo available from httpwwwspecialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet accessed on 22 January 2006
143Ibid
66
The program ended in earnest in July of 1962 the Geneva negotiations on Laos
were signed stipulating that all foreign military personnel had to withdraw from Laos
The White Star advisors left the country as required while less than fifty of an estimated
10000 North Vietnamese soldiers passed through international observer checkpoints144
The Laotians were not demobilized but continued to receive covert support from the
CIA However with the end of the Vietnam war all US efforts in Laos ended and the
tribes who continued to fight were decimated many becoming refugees in Thailand
The operations in Laos were covert foreign internal defense shaping operations in
the larger context of the growing problems in South Vietnam However the White Star
operation was never able to successfully deny eastern Laos to the North Vietnamese It is
arguable whether the operational approach was combat or direct support but based on the
fact that Special Forcesrsquo suffered one killed-in-action and four missing in action during
this operation there were obviously combat advisor taking place145
Vietnam
In early 1961 President Kennedy tasked the CIA with initiating covert operations
against North Vietnam wanting to ldquoturn the heat up on Hanoi and do to them what they
were doing to the US ally in South Vietnamrdquo146 The real problem was that putting agents
and developing resistance forces in the North was that it was a denied area which some
144Charles M Simpson Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years (Novato CA Presidio Press 1983) 90
145Specialoperationcom
146Richard H Shultz Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi (New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999) xiii
67
considered to be a tougher environment than the Soviet Union China East Germany and
North Korea147 Over the next two years the President grew increasingly impatient with
CIA operations in North Vietnam and in 1963 turned over a majority of the programs to
military control in what was called ldquoOperation Switchbackrdquo This was a world-wide
replacement of CIA leadership of clandestine paramilitary operationsrdquo148
While there were many CIA programs developed a majority were turned over to
the military to run early in 1963 However one program that was an interagency effort to
defeat the insurgency called the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development
Support (CORDS) was established in 1967 Later to the ldquoRevolutionaryrdquo would be
changed to ldquoRuralrdquo but the programs goals did not--pacification of South Vietnamese
rural areas149 The CIArsquos role in CORDS was what initially was known as the
Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program later to be renamed Phoenix150 The
aim of this portion of Phoenix was to identify and neutralize the Viet Cong insurgent
underground organizational infrastructure in the rural towns and villages The Phoenix
programs emphasized four areas to attack the Viet Cong infrastructure (VCI) district
intelligence centers to identify VCI neutralize verified members of the VCI by either
capturing killing or conversion established rules for prosecuting VCI and placed the
147Ibid
148Simpson 138
149Major Ross Coffey ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
150Dale Andrade and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
68
emphasis of these efforts on local militias and police instead of the military In a four
year period beginning in 1968 Phoenix neutralized 81740 Viet Cong
The operations in North Vietnam proved that it is difficult to create a resistance or
insurgency from scratch especially in a denied area The programs were covert indirect
unconventional warfare operations with the goal of shaping the strategic environment
The Phoenix program was a low-visibility counterinsurgency program thus a foreign
internal defense It also was a shaping operation for the larger objective of CORDS
pacification plan and its operational approach was to empower local militias and police
so it was direct support
Nicaragua
The covert actions Finding for Nicaragua were signed by President Carter within
two weeks of the Sandinistas National Liberation Front rise to power in 1979151
However Carterrsquos Finding entailed nonlethal covert action only It was not until
December of 1981 that President Reagan would signed a Finding authorizing ldquocovert
funding and assistance for the anti-Sandinista rebelsrdquo better known as the Contras152
The initial funds and authorities provided funds to Argentina ldquoto organize and train a
five-hundred-man anti-Sandinistas unit for deployment in the Central American region
but with a proviso that the funds could not be utilized to overthrow the Nicaraguan
governmentrdquo153
151Daugherty 190
152Ibid 203
153Ibid 204
69
By the end of the program a second Finding authorized operations in Nicaragua
ldquocosting close to $100 million per year and the five-hundred-member Argentine unit was
transformed into a multi-thousand Nicaraguan rebel forcerdquo154 As Lynn Horton
highlights
[I]t is possible that 30000 or more Nicaraguans fought at some point with antigovernment forces making the contras [sic] one of the largest armed mobilizations of peasants in contemporary Latin American history In addition thousands more peasants participated in civilian collaborator networks that provided contra [sic] troops with food shelter and vital military information155
Despite the controversy in the US with the program the war ended in 1990 after the
Sandinistas National Liberation Front was defeated in the election that year The forces
were not demobilized by the US with some reverting to insurgency as necessary over the
next decade This controversial but successful program was a covert unconventional
warfare operation that ended up being a decisive operation through indirect support from
the different agencies in the US government
Afghanistan and the Soviets
The US had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of a Soviet-supported third-
world country Vietnam When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the Carter administration
saw an opportunity to return the favor As President Carterrsquos National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested ldquoWe now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its
Vietnamrdquo156 The Carter administration had already started covert operations months
154Ibid
155Lynn Horton Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 (Athens GA Ohio University 1998) xii
156Daugherty 189
70
before the Soviet invasion including a propaganda campaign indirect financial aid to
insurgents direct financial assistance to Afghan eacutemigreacute groups lethal and nonlethal aid
and offered training and support157 Afghanistan would prove to be the largest CIA
operation in history and one of the most successful As Anthony Joes highlights CIArsquos
success ldquoIt was perhaps the most satisfying experience the Americans ever had with
guerrilla warfarerdquo158
The Afghan mujahideen were much weaker militarily and politically than the
Vietnamese had been and they were facing a superpower that was not squeamish about
using brutal tactics against insurgents The other element that the mujahideen lacked was
unity of command and effort which was a huge obstacle but was partly due to the tribal
and warlord nature of the society
The amount of money the US expended was initially relatively small around 80
million dollars a year but this jumped to 470 million dollars a year in 1986 and to 700
million dollars by 1988159 The only major obstacle that the CIA faced was in its dealing
with the Pakistani intelligence service that favored four Afghan groups and ensured that
the majority of weapons over 70 percent were given to these groups However the
Pakistani Intelligence Service took an active roll in training and supporting the Afghans
to include numerous schools which trained over 80000 mujahideen by 1988160 The
157Ibid 188-189
158Anthony James Joes America and Guerrilla Warfare (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000) 279
159Ibid 310
160Harclerode 536
71
British were also very active throughout Afghanistan supporting the CIA efforts161 The
CIA also took advantage of the situation and was able to capture or recover some of the
Sovietrsquos premiere equipment including a Mi-24 attack helicopter162 The real coup was
the introduction of the Stinger missile which accounted for nearly 500 aircraft in 1987163
By 1988 the situation was untenable for the Soviets they had lost domestic support for
the war The Afghan mujahideen had succeeded in defeating the Soviets Once again the
US did not demobilize these elements although some effort was made to track the usage
of Stingers and to have unused Stingers turned back in
The efforts in Afghanistan provide a good example of coalition unconventional
warfare with numerous nations providing some type of support to the covert efforts
Afghanistan was an operational and strategic decisive operation removing the Soviets
from Afghanistan but also from the world scene leading up to the fall of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War The operational approach varied depending on the
nation some providing indirect monetary and political recognition of the effort to other
efforts that were direct support in nature providing training and sanctuary outside the
borders of Afghanistan Finally there were some combat advisory efforts by the US
Pakistan India China and other countries from the Middle East in the form of
intelligence agents and paramilitary advisors164
161Ibid 540
162Ibid 543-544
163Joes 311
164Harclerode 512
72
Central Intelligence Agency Summary
After a rough Post-World War II period the CIA proved to be a world class
intelligence organization From the first British visionaries who saw the potential of
unconventional warfare it has been proven time and again to be a viable method of
warfare It has been used to defeat the US and the Soviets and it continues to haunt the
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan Based on recent experience as a nation covert
paramilitary operations are now proven foreign policy tools
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Doctrinal Developments
In 1951 Lieutenant Colonels Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann were given the
charter to develop a DOD unconventional warfare capability by then chief of the Army
Psychological Warfare Brigadier General Robert McClure Both men understood
unconventional warfare due to their first-hand experiences in World War II working with
indigenous resistance organizations Lieutenant Colonel Bank was an OSS veteran
having supported resistance groups in France as a member of a Jedburgh team and later
in China165 Lieutenant Colonel Volkmann had organized the US Forces in the
Philippines--Northern Luzon ldquoone of the largest and best organized guerrilla operations
on Luzonrdquo166 He had also written the first Army Field Manual (FM) on guerrilla warfare
FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla [sic] Warfare that was published just
165Bank 13
166Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet accessed on 3 May 2006
73
as he and Bank began to develop the concepts for unconventional warfare and Special
Forces167
The combined experiences of Bank and Volckmann ran the gambit of
unconventional warfare one conducted clandestine operations in an environment where
he could speak the language and blend in while the other in a environment that he could
not blend into one trained in clandestine unconventional warfare the other with no
formal unconventional warfare training one in a combination urban and rural
environment the other in a rural jungle one as a member of a highly trained team the
other as part of an ad hoc organization and one conducted unconventional warfare
operation of generally short duration the other conducted long-term unconventional
warfare and finally one had experience using unconventional warfare to support
conventional operations while the other had experience conducting unconventional
warfare operations as the only effort until late in the war
However even with all of their experiences their most difficult task was to battle
conventional mindsets such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff that disliked the idea of
unconventional warfare As Bank explained ldquoIt apparently was fearful of what it
perceived to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in sub-rosa cloak-
and-dagger activities in the event of disclosurerdquo168 This contrasted to the new CIA that
wanted sole responsibility for unconventional warfare not just covert paramilitary
activities during peacetime as stipulated by National Security Council 102 in June
167Lieutenant Colonel Russell Volckmann US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare (Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951)
168Bank 161
74
1948169 Bank and Volckmann set out to establish an organization that could conduct UW
based on an operational element later the Operational Detachment Alpha which they
envisioned as ldquoa cadre that would mushroom into a huge guerrilla force actually a
phantom armyrdquo170
The same confusion that surrounds unconventional warfare today also haunted
Bank and Volkmann as Bank explains
Neither of us liked the fact that so much terminology was being bandied around concerning behind-the-lines operations The terms unconventional warfare clandestine operations unorthodox warfare and special operations were being used interchangeably171
When they refined the operational term they called it Special Forces Operations which
had a sole purpose of supporting resistance movements The operational concept
envisioned by Bank and Volckmann was
to infiltrate by air sea or land deep into enemy-controlled territory and to stay organize equip train control and direct the indigenous potential in the conduct of Special Forces Operations Special Forces Operations were defined as the organization of resistance movements and operation of their component networks conduct of guerrilla warfare field intelligence gathering espionage sabotage subversion and escape and evasion activitiesrdquo172
The focus on organizing resistance movements in this concept was Bank and Volkmannrsquos
attempt to separate Ranger-style missions from what they envisioned as Special Forces
missions
169Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins (Washington DC National Defense University 1982) 69
170Bank 166
171Ibid
172Ibid 179
75
This was important too since Bank and Volkmann had been under pressure from
the beginning to combine these two forces together This combined unit was supposed to
conduct all aspects of behind the line operations from unilateral raids and sabotage to
support to guerrilla movements Bank explains the differences ldquoThe Rangers were
strictly short-term shallow-penetration units whereas [Office of Strategic Services] had
long term much more complex strategic capabilitiesrdquo173 The Special Forces Operations
concept was meant to separate the purposes of Special Forces and Rangers Over the next
fifty years Special Forces added many of the missions which Bank and Volkmann fought
so hard to keep from the Special Forces charter However in times of budget cuts and
force reductions Special Forces had to adapt to the times to maintain the force and
relevance Vietnam and the Cold War would provide the impetus for developing new
capabilities that were not in the original charter developed by Bank and Volckmann
In the 1960rsquos as the Cold War began to be fought by communist-backed
revolutionists insurgents and guerrillas President Kennedy called upon the men who
trained to fight as guerrillas to now fight against these threats in an effort to contain
communist expansion in other words ldquofight fire with firerdquo President Kennedy set out in
earnest in the early 1960rsquos through a series of letters to the Army to get the military as a
whole to change the conventionally-bound military mindset to adapt to this new type of
political-insurgent warfare Thomas K Adams explains the reaction of the conventional
military to the request of the President
President Kennedy called for ldquoa wholly new kind of strategy a wholly different kind of force and therefore a new and different kind of military trainingrdquo What he got was business as usual but with [unconventional warfare] trimmings
173Ibid 144
76
regardless of the wrapper the contents of the package remained conventional warfare Describing the Armyrsquos reaction to Kennedyrsquos program Maxwell Taylor remembered feeling that ldquoall this dust coming out of the White House really isnrsquot necessaryrdquo It was ldquosomething we have to satisfy but not much heart went into [the] workrdquo He sounded a long standing theme when he added that he felt the Special Forces were not doing anything that ldquoany well-trained unitrsquo couldnrsquot dordquo174
Thomas Adams also noted as a result of these letters what occurred was ldquoan attempt to
fit the existing military structure to the counterinsurgency problemrdquo175 There were
numerous studies and conferences on topics such as special warfare counterinsurgency
and guerrilla operations during this time However the outcome of all these studies was a
limited counterinsurgency capability based on conventional light infantry tactics with no
change in understanding of the complex cultural and political elements of the problem176
In the 1960s despite the problems with the conventional military establishment
accepting its role in counterinsurgency Special Forces proved highly successful in
fighting insurgencies and guerrillas throughout the world In Vietnam for example
Special Forces programs such as the Civilian Irregular Defense Group and Mobile Strike
Forces were highly successful operations using indigenous or surrogate forces the
Montagnards and Chinese Nungs respectively Doctrine began to catch up to the
counterinsurgency actions with subtle shifts in 1965 to include discussions of Special
Forcesrsquo roles in counterinsurgency in FM 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques
and FM 31-21 Special Forces Operations
174Thomas K Adams US Special Operations in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare (Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998) 70
175Ibid 73 176Ibid
77
With the addition of counterinsurgency in these manuals the confusion between
counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare began with a mixing of terms One such
example is found in the 1961 FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces
Operations in which a new command structure is introduced called the Joint
Unconventional Warfare Task Force This task force would provide command and
control to operational elements within the theater of operations177 This headquarters
concept was put into practice in 1964 when the Military Assistance Command Vietnam-
Studies and Observation Group was created as a joint unconventional warfare task force
As Thomas K Adams explains that this Studies and Observation group was ldquoresponsible
for special operations in Burma Cambodia Laos North and South Vietnam and border
areas of Chinardquo178 In hindsight including unconventional warfare in the task force name
was probably a misnomer since all of the operations encompassed in the region were
either overt or covert foreign internal defense and special reconnaissance and to a lesser
extent direct action The only unconventional warfare operations during this period were
the failed attempts to establish and support a resistance force in North Vietnam179
In the 1963 version of FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces a new
counterinsurgency unit called the Special Action Force appears180 The Special Action
Force ldquois a specially-trained area-oriented partially language-qualified ready force
177Department of the Army FM 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1961) 14
178Adams 118 179Shultz 3
180Department of the Army FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1963) 1
78
available to the commander of a unified command for the support of cold limited and
general war operationsrdquo181 This Force is build specifically around a Special Forces group
with the mission of ldquoproviding training operational advise and assistance to indigenous
forcesrdquo182 The manual suggested that the Special Action Force be task organized with
ldquocivil affairs psychological warfare engineers medical intelligence military police and
Army Security Agency detachmentrdquo183 Another interesting feature of this organization
as explained in the FM 31-22 is the conventional army brigade-sized backup force As
the manual describes ldquoBrigade-size backup forces are area oriented and designed to back
up a particular [Special Action Force] These forces are committed to an operational area
when the capabilities of the [Special Action Force] have been exceededrdquo184
Charles Simpson III explains the real world application of the Special Action
Forces concept
Four Special Action Forces came into being one on Okinawa built around the 1st Special Forces Group for the Far East (SAFASIA) one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America and tow at Fort Bragg organized around the new 3rd and 6th Groups for Africa and the Middle East In Europe the 10th Special Forces Grouphellipassumed functions much like those of the large [Special Action Forces] but without their resources185
181Ibid 16
182Ibid 20
183Ibid 16
184Ibid 42
185Simpson 69
79
By 1972 the Special Action Force concept had ended with no group ever fully deployed
instead being piecemealed throughout the theaters186 One of the major shortcomings of
the program was the fact that a Special Action Force had to be requested by the
ambassador which was unlikely to be supported by the rest of the country team which
had civilian capabilities that were similar to the SAF This interagency rivalry
significantly reduced the effectiveness and usefulness of the Special Action Force
concept and led to the concepts demise187
A doctrinal shift occurred with the 1969 publication of FM 31-21 Special Forces
Operations which addressed new missions of support for stability operations and
unilateral operations--the precursors of foreign internal defense direct action personnel
recovery strategic or special reconnaissance This manual is still focused heavily on
unconventional warfare with this topic covered in the first nine of eleven chapters
however one chapter devoted to support for stability operations and one to covering the
employment of Special Forces ldquoin additional military operationsrdquo Stability operations in
this manual are defined as
internal defense and internal development operations and assistance provided by the armed forces to maintain restore or establish a climate of order within which responsible government can function effectively and without which progress cannot be achieved188
It also clarifies that unconventional warfare doctrine is ldquonot entirely applicable to overt
stability operationsrdquo and stipulates that
186Adams 100 187Simpson 68-9
188FM 31-21 10-1
80
Many [unconventional warfare] tactics and techniques such as those employed to gain the support of the local population to establish intelligence nets and to conduct tactical operations such as raids and ambushes may be adapted to stability operations189
The manual also describes ldquoadditional military operationsrdquo as ldquounilateral deep
penetrations to conduct reconnaissance surveillance and target acquisition attack
critical strategic targets recovery of friendly personnel in remote or hostile areas and
training of US andor allied personnel in Special Forces operational tactics and
techniquesrdquo190 Also of note is the definition of direct action mission ldquoOvert or
clandestine operations in hostile or denied areas which are conducted by US
[unconventional warfare] forces rather than by US conventional forces or through US
direction of indigenous forcesrdquo191 This is interesting because it denotes difference
between the unilateral direct operations and the use of indigenous forces
Unconventional warfare would continue to be the primary operation and bases for
all the Special Forces field manuals throughout the 1970s Foreign internal defense
emerged in the mid-1970s in Special Forces doctrinal manuals The definition of foreign
internal defense in the 1978 Special Text 31-201 Special Forces Operations is directly
out of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Publication 1 and is defined as the ldquoparticipation by
civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by
another government to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and
189Ibid
190Ibid 11-1
191Ibid Glossary 1
81
insurgencyrdquo192 It also describes a Special Action Force-type organization based once
again on a Special Forces group augmented with ldquohighly specialized skills need to assist
a host country to develop internal defenserdquo193 This special text notes that a augmented
Special Forces group can train advise and assist the host countryrsquos regular or
paramilitary forces as well as compliment or expand the US security assistance efforts of
the country team for short periods of time194
Between late 1970 and 1990 the changes in Special Forces doctrine were not
captured in writing The 1990 publication of FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces
Operations superseded the last FM 31-20 from 1977195 This new manual detailed eight
Special Forces missions and activities unconventional warfare foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism collateral activities and other
special operations activities196 While the definition of unconventional warfare is exactly
the same as today it is still obvious that unconventional warfare is directly related to
ldquoinsurgency or other armed resistance movementsrdquo197 Of note this manual begins to
address the change in insurgent environments from rural based to urban based In
192US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations (Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978) A-1
193Ibid
194Ibid
195Department of the Army FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 20 April 1990) Cover
196Ibid Index
197Ibid 3-2
82
response the manual explains that ldquoglobal urbanization dictates a shift in emphasis from
rural [guerrilla warfare] to all aspects of clandestine resistancerdquo198 This is the first time
in the doctrinal manuals that clandestine operations are discussed with regards to the
urbanization of insurgency
The Gulf War revitalized Special Forces having conducted numerous operations
employing special reconnaissance and coalition support Like many missions coalition
support was a necessary mission with only a couple of options for manning this force-shy
Special Forces was the most qualified In a misguided attempt to keep unconventional
warfare current to the times coalition support operations were added to unconventional
warfare This idea was further explained in the June 2001 FM 3-0520 Special Forces
Operations ldquoThe conventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and
led in varying degrees by SF and US allies represents the newest evolution of UW-related
surrogate forcesrdquo199 The argument could be made that elements of the 10th Special
Forces Group conducted unconventional warfare using Kuwaiti military units that had
fled the Iraqi invasion Although the actual operational impact was small due to the small
size of the ldquofreerdquo Kuwaiti force the civil-political impact of having a Kuwaiti unit help in
liberating its country was huge200 The use of surrogates or ldquosomeone who takes the
place of or acts for anotherrdquo was first addressed in the 1990 version of FM 31-20 in
198Ibid
199FM 3-0520 2-6
200Susan L Marquis Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces (Washington DC Brookings Institute Press 1997) 234
83
response to coalition warfare201 The 2001 FM 3-0520 tries to explain this concept to
prove coalition support is a valid unconventional warfare operation ldquoFrom a US point of
view these coalition forces and resources are surrogates and act as substitutes for US
troops and resources reducing US commitmentldquo202 The manual also highlights that
ldquoconventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and led in varying
degrees by SF and US allies represent the newest evolution in UW-related surrogate
forcesrdquo203
After the Gulf War as evidenced by the emphasis that coalition support was ldquothe
newest evolutionrdquo unconventional warfare was standing on shaky ground within the
Special Forces community204 The general feeling within Special Forces was
unconventional warfare no longer was a viable mission in the post-Cold War
environment and should be relegated to a lesser role or dropped altogether John Collins
highlights this feeling when he wrote ldquoCongress therefore might weigh the advisability
of discarding [unconventional warfare] as a statutory rolerdquo in favor of foreign internal
defense205
In October of 1994 Colonel Mark Boyatt then the Commander of 3rd Special
Forces Group wrote an article in Special Warfare recommending unconventional warfare
201FM 3-0520 2-5
202Ibid 2-6
203Ibid
204Ibid
205John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
84
and the other Special Forces core missions should fall under the umbrella of a new term
unconventional operations206 This concept did not catch on and in fact received some
critical reviews from his contemporaries One of his critics was Colonel Glenn Harned
who explains that a single catch-all mission like unconventional operations would not
allow a Special Forces element to stay proficient in all the skills sets necessary required
to be ldquounconventional operations qualifiedrdquo207
In October of 1998 the Commanding General of the United States Army Special
Forces Command (Airborne) then Major General William Boykin asked for input on the
relevance of unconventional warfare208 Although the results of this question are difficult
to determine from a doctrinal standpoint one of the replies highlights the
misunderstanding abound in the branch In answering this question Commander of the
3rd Special Forces Colonel Gary Jones and Major Chris Tone coauthored an article that
attempted to explain that although unconventional warfare had replaced the term guerrilla
warfare guerrilla warfare was still the primary mission of Special Forces They further
highlighted that ldquoIn the minds of most [sic] [Special Forces] soldiers [unconventional
warfare] doctrine has been oversimplified [Unconventional warfare] is just [foreign
internal defense] in a denied areardquo209 The authors go on to further misrelate insurgency
206Colonel Mark D Boyatt ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
207Colonel Glenn M Harned ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
208Kershner 84
209Colonel Gary M Jones and Major Chris Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 6
85
and guerrilla warfare when they state ldquoThe contrast between the operational
environments of the two unconventional warfare missions are striking [Guerrilla
Warfare] is conducted when our nation is at war insurgency is conducted when our
nation is at peacerdquo210 This article received a lot of positive feedback throughout the
community One supporter said that it ldquomarked the beginning of a [unconventional
Warfare] renaissance in the [Special Forces] communityrdquo211 However retired Colonel J
H Crerer wrote a critical review highlighting the mistakes of the authors for example
ldquoFirst [unconventional warfare] includes [guerrilla warfare] so it would be illogical to
use the terms interchangeably Second and more important [unconventional warfare]
also includes subversion and sabotagerdquo212
In 2000 the United States Army Special Forces Command again broached the
question of unconventional warfarersquos relevance and attempted to refocus the branch on
unconventional warfare to ensure Special Forces relevancy as the Army was concurrently
conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates The end result was a Special Forces
Commandrsquos concept called Unconventional Warfare 2020 Colonel Michael Kershner
summarized the findings of Unconventional Warfare 2020 in a series of articles in the
spring of 2001 that highlighted the confusion with unconventional warfare and redefined
unconventional warfare Colonel Kershnerrsquos explained that the new definition of
unconventional warfare would encompass all of the other core Special Forces missions
210Ibid
211Major Mike Skinner ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare as an SF Missionrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16
212Colonel J H Crerar ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37
86
to include foreign internal defense213 This subtle change to the definition was widely
accepted by the Special Forces branch which had been struggling for years to find a
more definitive description of unconventional warfare that would ensure a ldquonicherdquo
mission that no other military unit could conduct As Colonel Kershner explained in an
interview with Dennis Steele for an article in ARMY Magazine ldquoWe donrsquot want to be
stuck in the past or step into the future in a way that is irrelevant We must focus on
relevant and unique capabilities and [unconventional warfare] is our most unique
capabilityrdquo214
One other major point of departure from the legacy unconventional warfare
doctrine discussed by Kershner was the removal of the seven phases of US-sponsored
insurgency from doctrine Kershner stated that this seven-phases construct was ldquooutdated
[and it was] more appropriate to describe [unconventional warfare] in terms of current
US doctrinal phases--engagement crisis response war-fighting and return to
engagementrdquo215 The theory that US sponsors unconventional warfare in seven phases
emerged in the 1965 version of FM 31-20 Special Forces Operations (the 31-20 series
being the predecessor to 3-0520) However even earlier Russell Volkmannrsquos 1951 FM
31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare provided a similar phasing
213Kershner 84
214Dennis Steele ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article on-line] available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet accessed on 14 May 2006
215Ibid 87
construct in which he discussed ldquoseveral operational phasesrdquo including psychological
preparations initial contact infiltration organization build-up and exploitationrdquo216
Although not part of his suggested phases Volkmann discusses demobilization as
a separate chapter217 The unconventional warfare efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq after 11
September would validate the seven-phased construct However in Afghanistan and Iraq
the phases were compressed due to political constraints and then the tempo of operations
The only phase that was not validated during operation in Afghanistan and Iraq was the
seventh phase demobilization While some resistance elements were demobilized and
returned to society a vast majority continued to serve in the postconflict phases The
seven-phase construct had been developed based on the experiences of World War II in
which there was a rapid demobilization of forces at the end of the war The new
experiences with postconflict operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may force a change in
this final phase of unconventional warfare as it transitions to foreign internal defense218
Less than six months after Kershnerrsquos articles were published the events of 11
September transpired By the summer of 2003 unconventional warfare had been
successfully conducted in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and had been used to
support the conventional offensive operations against Saddam Hussein In each of these
efforts unconventional warfare would transition to foreign internal defense of an
intensity and scale that had not been encountered by US forces since Vietnam The events
of 11 September had one more effect the results of the Unconventional Warfare 2020
216FM 31-21 37-38
217Ibid 227-232
218Authorrsquos own experiences from Northern Iraq April 2003
88
studies were lost and not incorporated into the 2003 version of FM 3-05201 Special
Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations The first paragraph in the manual describes
the aspects of unconventional warfare explaining ldquoThe intent of Unites States (US)
[unconventional warfare] operations is to exploit a hostile powerrsquos political military
economic and psychological vulnerability by developing and sustaining resistance forces
to accomplish US strategic objectivesrdquo219 It also began to capture some of the lessons
learned from Operation Enduring Freedom the most important being that unconventional
warfare operations may be supported by conventional operations instead of the more
traditional role unconventional warfare supporting conventional operations As the
manual explains ldquothere are times when introduction of conventional forces does not
take the main effort away from unconventional operations in fact the conventional
forces may support the unconventional forcesrdquo220 The newest FM 3-05201 is currently
in final unreleased draft form and is classified SECRET This will be the first
unconventional warfare manual that has been classified in its entirety In the past a
classified supplemental pamphlet supplemented the unclassified manual such as the 1961
version of FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations with a classified
supplemental FM 31-21A
In mid-January 2004 the ldquoCody Conferencerdquo was held in Cody Wyoming ldquoto
identify concepts that will be necessary for shaping the future of Army Special
219FM 3-05201 1-1
220Ibid 1-3
89
Forcesrdquo221 The twelve members of this conference included a number of senior active
duty and retired Special Forces officers as well as representatives from acclaimed
members of the media academia and private sector222 With the war on terrorism as the
focal point the conference studied the current conflict and worked to define Special
Forces role against this new threat Major General Lambert highlights that ldquoSpecial
Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare which includes counterinsurgency and guerrilla
warfare Special Forces should be chartered to monitor and combat insurgencies even
though other US forces will move on to new prioritiesrdquo223 One of the recommendations
of this panel was the development of a ldquostanding deployable Special Forces
Headquartersrdquo that would be capable of conducting ldquosustained guerrilla warfarerdquo224
These last two points highlight the continued confusion of unconventional warfare
guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency that reaches even the highest levels of Special
Forces
The conference did develop a number of recommendations in addition to the just
mentioned deployable headquarters including the need for a ldquoglobal environment of
seamless information- and intelligence-sharing [improving] coalition allied and
surrogate intelligence and operational capabilitiesrdquo and ldquo[Conducting] area-denial
221Major General Geoffrey C Lambert ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20
222Ibid 27
223Ibid 23
224Ibid
90
area-control and remote-area operations either directly or with partnersrdquo225
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense would obviously play a significant
role in establishing this global capability by empowering the coalition partners to defeat
or disrupt their own internal and external threats as well as remove unfriendly regimes
that could be providing sanctuary for ones enemies as the Taliban did for Al Qarsquoida
Major General Lambert also mentions the importance of Special Forces as a ldquoforce
multiplierrdquo that ldquoconserves conventional military force for the main effortsrdquo226
In 1990 FM 100-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict the first
manual specifically written for low-intensity conflict was published in a joint effort by
the Army and Air Force The writers explain that ldquoThis manual fills a void which has
existed in the Army and Air Force for some time It complements warfighting doctrine by
providing operational guidance for military operations in [low intensity conflict] from
which implementing doctrine can be developedrdquo227 FM 100-20 also described an
organization called the Foreign Internal Defense Augmentation Force which could
augment or support the Security Assistance Organization in ldquosituations that range from
conditions short of open hostility to limited war They may locate strategically and vary
in size and capabilities according to theater requirementsrdquo228 This augmentation force if
225Ibid 22
226Ibid 24
227Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force Field Manual 100shy20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 5 December 1990) 1-1
228Ibid A-7 91
very similar to the previous described Special Action Forces of the late 1960s and early
1970s
The implementing doctrine for FM 100-20 took the form of FM 31-20-3
published four years later and titled Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and
Procedures for Special Forces The manual provided an extensive ldquohow tordquo handbook
for foreign internal defense The concepts of indirect direct and combat support to
foreign internal defense was not portrayed in this manual or its parent manual FM 100shy
20 The 1996 joint foreign internal defense manual JP 3-071 was reverse engineered
from the Special Forces manual However the joint manual was much more detailed and
had more depth
The family of Army manuals FM 100-5 and FM 3-0 Operations manuals have
only provided a basic description of foreign internal defense and to a much lesser extent
unconventional warfare The 1993 version of FM 100-5 combines support to insurgencies
and counterinsurgencies in three paragraphs total229 The 2001 version of FM 3-0
provides a much more in-depth description of foreign internal defense than the previous
FM 100-5230 However support to insurgencies is covered in three sentences in the
ldquostability operationsrdquo chapter explaining in essence that it takes a National Command
Authority (term no longer used) for Army forces to support an insurgency that Army
229Department of the Army FM 100-5 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 13-7 to 13-8
230Department of the Army FM 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 9-8 to 9-9
92
special operations forces are best suited for this supporting role and that conventional
forces can support these operations if necessary231
The manual addresses special operations in a supporting role only ldquo[Special
operations forces] can reinforce augment and complement conventional forces In
war [special operations forces] normally support the theater campaign or major
operations of the [joint force commander]rdquo232 Finally the FM 3-0 describes the
battlefield organization as ldquothe allocation of forces in the [area of operation] by purpose
It consists of three all-encompassing categories of operations decisive shaping and
sustainingrdquo233 Decisive operations ldquoare those that directly accomplish the task assigned
by the higher headquarters Decisive operations conclusively determine the outcome of
major operations battles and engagementsrdquo234 FM 3-0 further defines shaping
operations as ldquo[creating] or [preserving] conditions for success of the decisive
operationsrdquo235
While FM 3-0 does not directly relate these operations to unconventional warfare
or foreign internal defense examples exist that provide ample evidence that these
operations can be decisive and shaping With regards to unconventional warfare
operations supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 were
decisive and resulted in the overthrow of the Taliban while the operations in Northern
231Ibid 9-10
232Ibid 2-8
233Ibid 4-22
234Ibid 4-23
235Ibid
93
Iraq supporting the Kurdish resistance fixed thirteen of twenty Iraqi divisions in the
North shaping the battlefield for the conventional forces invading from the south An
example of a Special Forces foreign internal defense effort that was decisive is the direct
support to the El Salvadoran military to defeat the Farabundo Marti National Liberation
Front (FMLN) and a shaping operation is the success Special Forces had in South
Vietnam developing indigenous counterinsurgency forces in support of the larger
conventional campaign None of these examples have found their way into the joint or
Army doctrine The new FM 3-0 is currently in un-releasable final draft form
Much like the Army operations doctrine the 2001 JP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint
Operations takes only a paragraph to describe unconventional warfare calling it support
to insurgency This paragraph reads
Support to Insurgency An insurgency is an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a legally constituted government through the use of subversion and armed action US forces may provide logistic and training support to an insurgency but are not normally involved in the conduct of combat operations236
The current draft of the new JP 3-0 now called Joint Operations has added one
component to the above definition ldquoThe United States may support an insurgency against
a regime threatening US [sic] interests (eg US [sic] Support [sic] to the Mujahadin [sic]
resistance in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion)rdquo237 While the both publications
capture some elements of US support to insurgency such as training and logistics support
it has obviously not been updated since Operation Iraqi Freedom based on the final
236Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 10 September 2001) V-13
237Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) VII-9
94
statement that US forces ldquonormallyrdquo donrsquot conduct combat operations However the
description differs from the description found in FM 3-0 Operatioins in one respect it
provides a real-world example of unconventional warfare describing US efforts to
support the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets
Another important concept in the soon-to-be published Joint Publication 3-0
provides a new operational ldquophasing modelrdquo shown in figure 1 which has some
applicability to this study238 This model is important to this study because it provides the
first doctrinal recognition that any campaign is going to have multiple phases occurring
simultaneously and that operations do not stop at what has previously called conflict
termination--the end of combat operations For this study it will be important to
determine how the seven phases of US sponsored unconventional warfare fit within this
phasing construct This conceptual models has six phases--one phase covering peacetime
engagement and five the phases of an operation
238Ibid IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfare conceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
95
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfareconcepts approved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model
Phase 0-Shape-(Prevent and Deter) This is the normal peacetime engagement
environment in which the US forces are conducting operations to support the theater
security cooperation plan
96
Phase 1-Deter-(Crisis Defined) This is the first step in resolving conflict by
demonstrating military capabilities and the resolve of the US and it partners in an attempt
to deter an opponent from acting or forcing the US to react
Phase 2-Seize the Initiative-(Assure Friendly Freedom of Action and Access to
Theater Infrastructure) During this phase joint forces are applied to the problem to set
the condition for the dominate phase and may include military action and diplomatic
efforts
Phase 3-Dominate-(Establish Dominate Force Capabilities and Achieve Full
Spectrum Superiority) This is the phase that is focused on ldquobreaking the enemyrsquos will for
organized resistance or in noncombat situations control of the operational environmentrdquo
Phase 4-Stabilize-(Establish Security and restore services) This phase is required
when there is ldquolimitedrdquo or ldquono functioning legitimate civil governing entity present The
joint force may have to perform limited local governancerdquo
Phase 5-Enable Civil Authority-(Enable authorities and Redeploy) During this
phase the US joint forces support the legitimate government and more importantly it
marks the military end state and redeployment239
The new JP 3-0 also highlights that the ldquoStabilizerdquo phase may characterize the
transition from ldquosustained combatrdquo to ldquostability operationsrdquo It also rightly explains
ldquoStability operations are conducted as needed to ensure a smooth transition to the next
phase and relieve sufferingrdquo240 However the model does not provide a description of
how to identify this transition The importance of this graph will become apparent during
239JP 3-0 Joint Operations IV-33 to IV-37
240Ibid IV-36
97
the analysis portion of this thesis especially with respect to phasing unconventional
warfare and the transitions between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
Other documents are available to provide some insight into the future of Special
Forces doctrine with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense in
lieu of these soon-to-be-released doctrinal manuals These are the 2004 National Military
Strategy the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and finally the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement These three documents may hold the keys to
future unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
The 2004 National Military Strategy identifies six capabilities required for the US
to win decisively ldquoconventional warfighting unconventional warfare homeland
security stability and postconflict operations countering terrorism and security
cooperation activities [italics-authorsrsquo emphasis]rdquo241 This statement has enormous
implications for Special Forces in the future since three of these capabilities are Special
Forces-specific and are tied directly to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review is another important document with
respect to the future of unconventional warfare One of the Quadrennial Defense Review
decisions is to ldquoFurther increase [Special Operations Forces] capability and capacity to
conduct low-visibility persistent presence missions and a global unconventional warfare
241Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategy of the Unites States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow (Washington DC Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2004) 13
98
campaignrdquo The key point here is the idea of a ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo
and determining exactly what that means242
The term ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo is used in the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement but is not defined The posture statement does
define unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo243 These definitions are not supported by current joint definitions of
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense adding to the overall confusion The
posture statement identifies five missions that will ldquohelp establish the conditions to
counter and defeat terrorismrdquo unconventional warfare psychological operations foreign
internal defense special reconnaissance and civil affairs244 It is interesting that direct
action and counterterrorism are not mentioned in this list of operations since these two
operations are the major capability that the Special Operations Command provides to the
overall military effort245 Not addressing these terms may be an indicator that current
studies on unconventional warfare are pointing to direct action and counterterrorism
operations against non-state actors and their infrastructure as being unconventional
242Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
243United States Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 5 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8-06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
244Quadrennial Defense Review Report 1 see glossary for definitions
245FM 3-0520 2-1 see glossary for definitions
99
The history of Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine provides a window to the past The history of unconventional warfare doctrine is
plagued with confusion from the beginning From vague definitions to mission creep the
concepts of supporting insurgencies found in the Special Forces unconventional warfare
doctrine has been proven since 11 September The current attempt to change the
unconventional warfare doctrine to align with the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo is
not a new concept either and is the direct result of the vagueness of the unconventional
warfare definitions This idea is reinforced by studying foreign internal defense doctrine
which provides by far the most clear and concise definitions and doctrine
South Vietnam
The confusion over unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense reached
its climax in Vietnam Michael McClintock explains in terms of guerrilla warfare
(unconventional warfare) and counterinsurgency (foreign internal defense) ldquoThe
confusion of guerrilla warfare with counterinsurgency was in evidence from the
inceptions of the American effort to wage counterinsurgency in Vietnam What is
extraordinary is that very little thought appears to have gone into this distinctionrdquo He
suggests that ldquothe [Special Forces] generally went about the task of counterinsurgency as
if engaged in guerrilla operations behind enemy linesrdquo246
Regardless of the confusion the Special Forces programs were easily among the
most productive in the entire war effort The main Special Forces efforts were with the
246Michael McClintock Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 (wwwstatecraftorg 2002) available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet accessed on 21 February 2006
100
Civilian Irregular Defense Group program the Mobile Guerrilla Forces and Mike
Forces Another effort that is sometimes confused with unconventional warfare was the
cross-border operations conducted by the Studies and Observation Group which utilized
surrogates such as Chinese Nungs and turned former Viet Cong guerrillas in what
would more precisely be called special reconnaissance The nearly decade-long Civilian
Irregular Defense Group as Charles Simpson highlights ldquoinvolved thousands of
Vietnamese civilians millions of dollars and approximately 100 camps spread out from
the Demilitarized Zone to the Gulf of Siamrdquo247 This program unlike the Strategic
Hamlet Programs did not relocate villages but trained them to defend their own villages
which is captured by its original name--Village Defense Program248 While originally
defensive in nature it later evolved into an active defense sending out combat patrols as
early warning as well as interdicting Viet Cong or North Vietnamese units when these
villages were located in strategic locations such as astride to enemy lines of
communications
Another successful program that grew out of the necessity to have a quick
reaction force to react to Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacks on the Civilian
Irregular Defense Group camps was the Mobile Strike Forces better known as ldquoMike
Forcesrdquo The Mike Force was originally established in 1965 and formed from a battalion
of Chinese Nungs which is a tribal group originally from the Chinese and North
Vietnamese border The tenacity of these fighters had endeared them to the French and
247Simpson 95
248Ibid 99
101
were raised into ldquoNung Divisionsrdquo by the French and were settled into enclaves in South
Vietnam249
A similar program to the Mike Force was created called the Mobile Guerrilla
Force ldquoto conduct guerrilla warfare in the vast stretches of enemy-controlled territory
outside areas of operations of CIDG Campsrdquo250 An average Mobile Guerrilla Force was
made up of one Mike Force Company and a reconnaissance platoon As Charles Simpson
notes ldquoThe concept was to infiltrate these company-sized forces usually by foot and to
operate against the enemyrsquos lines of communications usually branches of the Ho Chi
Minh Trailrdquo251
All of these programs were without a doubt foreign internal defense missions
despite their ldquoguerrilla-like naturerdquo These indigenous forces were developed into
specialized but irregular units and capabilities all in an effort to defeat the Viet Cong
insurgents and disrupt North Vietnamese main force resupply and movements This was a
shaping effort for the overall US effort and was also overt It consisted of combat
support with Special Forces not only advising but actually commanding and leading
these units
North Vietnam
The Military Assistance Command Vietnam Special Observations Group was
established in 1963 with the task to pick up where the CIA had failed to conduct
249Ibid 120
250Ibid 124
251Ibid 125
102
operations in Laos and North Vietnamrdquo252 The Studies and Observation Group had four
principle covert missions under OPLAN 34A to insert and develop agent networks to
establish a fabricated resistance movement and misinformation campaign to conduct
maritime interdiction along the coast of North Vietnam and to conduct cross border
reconnaissance operations in Laos253 While considered the largest covert unconventional
warfare program since World War II the eight-year program from 1964 to 1972 had
mixed results At one end of the spectrum were the five hundred agents that upon
infiltration were neutralized or turned by the North to the successes in 1968 when the
North Vietnamese government began to fear the growing subversion However the US
policy makers feared a destabilized North Vietnamese government and for all intents and
purposes shut the programs in North Vietnam down once the Hanoi had been persuaded
to begin negotiations254 The most interesting aspect of this program was the use of
deception to make the North think a resistance was active The most noteworthy of these
efforts were the kidnapping of North Vietnamese citizens and exposing them to the fake
resistance organization known as the Sacred Sword of the Patriots League then returning
them to report to the information to their government
This was a covert unconventional warfare program and strategic shaping
operation While it was unsuccessful establishing an actual resistance the Sacred Sword
of the Patriots League was an interesting method that qualifies as an example of indirect
252Shultz xiii
253Ibid x-xi
254Ibid 330-331
103
support by using North Vietnamese citizens to unwittingly spread the rumor of the fake
resistance organization
El Salvador
Special Forces operations in El Salvador were a successful example of foreign
internal defense to help the military defeat the FMLN While this was an exceptional
example of how Special Forces could conduct foreign internal defense in direct support
to the El Salvadoran military it is routinely called an unconventional warfare operation
In fact it is identified this way in the manual that governs Special Forces operations FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations The FM 3-0520 explains
[Special Forces] operations in El Salvador during the 1980s are an example of [unconventional warfare as the decisive operation] In this instance [unconventional warfare] operations are conducted during what would appear to all but the [unconventional warfare] participants to be operations to promote peace never progressing through operations to deter aggression and resolve conflict or actual combat255
US direct support foreign internal defense was provided to El Salvador after a rocky
period of diplomatic engagement in which the US cut off economic and military aid due
to El Salvadorrsquos ruthless counterinsurgency operations against the FMLN which included
extensive human rights violations In early 1981 the FMLN had a nearly ten thousand-
man army poised and ready to overthrow the government until President Carter chose the
lesser of two evils and lifted the economic and military sanctions which turned the tide
255FM 3-0520 2-4
104
and allowed El Salvador to thwart the insurgents When President Reagan came into
office he was much more aggressive in his desire to thwart communist expansion 256
While other economic aid was being provided the US military group was allowed
by Congress to have a total of fifty-five personnel assigned to train equip and advise a
military that initially numbered around 12000 and would grow to nearly forty-two
thousand troops over a four year period257 The Special Forces advisors were part of the
Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams (OPATT) were also
restricted from conducting any direct combat operations Each OPATT team consisted of
three individuals assigned to a brigade which it was hoped would lead to better human
rights behavior and combat employment258 As Cecil Bailey highlights ldquoFor nearly eight
years OPATTS cycled through the brigades each one extending the progress of the
proceeding teamrdquo259 The three-man teams generally consisted of ldquoa combat-arms major
preferably with an [Special Forces] background and two [Special Forces nonshy
commissioned officers] or warrant officerrdquo260
The OPATTS were also not allowed to conduct combat operations with their
counter parts As Cecil Bailey notes lsquoThe restrictions against US military members
accompanying units on operations was especially onerous to the advisors who often
256James S Corum and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003) 329
257Ibid 333
258Cecil E Bailey ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
259Ibid
260Ibid 21
105
cited the restriction as affecting not only their relationship with their counterpart but also
their professional credibilityrdquo261 Cecil Bailey highlights the accomplishment of the
OPATTs ldquoContemporary studies evaluating the US military role in El Salvador often
praise the brigade advisers as being the leading contributors to combat effectiveness
improved human rights performance and professional behavior supporting constitutional
democratic valuesrdquo Considering that a few more than 140 Special Forces OPATT
advisors were employed during this conflict from 1985 to 1992 and were able to advise
forty battalions 40000 soldiers is impressive262 The best measure of effectiveness of
this foreign internal defense program comes from an FMLN commander Joaquin
Villallobosrsquo when he explained that ldquoputting American advisers in the brigades was the
most damaging thing that happened to them during the war He believed that the
adviserrsquos influence on the [El Salvadoran military] made them more professional and less
abusive [denying the FMLN] much of its earlier propaganda advantage and
recruiting appealrdquo263
Analysis of this conflict clearly shows that this was not unconventional warfare
but instead foreign internal defense conducted overtly and in direct support to the El
Salvadoran military although years later it would become clear that many of these
advisers were conducting combat advisory missions as well The OPATT advisory
program was the only military program conducted with no other conventional military
units participating thus making this a decisive operation
261Ibid 24
262Ibid 28
263Ibid 27
106
Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan
The operations in Afghanistan after 11 September provide a window into the
future of unconventional warfare The DOD had not been involved in an unconventional
warfare campaign of this magnitude since the Korean War The interoperability between
the CIA and special operations was unprecedented as well The preparation phase
happened from the moments after 11 September until the first CIA elements began to
infiltrate into Afghanistan which included political preparations for coalition support and
assistance with airfields and over flight rights as well as preparing the international
community and the American population for the armed response to 11 September The
CIA then established initial contact or reestablishing contacts from previous efforts in
Afghanistan Due to the compressed time schedule numerous Special Forces Operational
Detachment-Alphas infiltrated concurrently with the CIA paramilitary teams and rapidly
organized built-up and employed their Afghan counterparts264 The Special Forces and
CIA paramilitary worked in concert The Special Forces employed the Afghans guerrillas
in concert with US airpower to produce overwhelming combat power that outmatched the
Taliban At the same time the CIA subverted the Taliban by turning many of the
Talibanrsquos units through fear of destruction or through other incentives the most popular
being monetary ldquorewardsrdquo for changing sides Buying loyalty brought a whole new
meaning to the often used ldquoby with and throughrdquo is literally ldquoBUY with and throughrdquo
The Taliban was overthrown in less than two months with the interim
government of Hamid Karzai being established in mid-December This marked the shift
264CPT (now Major) Glenn Thomas conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
107
from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense as efforts transitioned to protect
the new government and its legitimacy over the coming months while at the same time
developing an internal security capability to disrupt or defeat future Taliban and Al
Qarsquoida threats This effort continues today
Until the transition this was initially a clandestine effort to infiltrate into
Afghanistan then transitioned to low-visibility operations The Special Forces
unconventional warfare operations became a decisive operation although this was not the
original plan in which they were to support the introduction of conventional forces This
was also an example of the first large-scale unconventional warfare operation utilizing
Special Forces in combat advisory approach since the OSS operations in World War II
The Afghans were not demobilized to a large extent but instead were used for
some time as militias supporting the Special Forces until they were transferred to national
control or sent home Later in the foreign internal defense operations the remaining
militias were replaced by Afghan Army units and finally disbanded or demobilized but
unlike the doctrinal seventh phase demobilization this took place sometime after the
conflict ended Once the conflict transitioned to the postconflict and unconventional
warfare transitioned to foreign internal defense the signature became overt and all
efforts by Special Forces became a supporting effort to the larger conventional
headquarters The operational approach had remained combat support with the goal
being to return to peacetime engagement and only a direct or indirect operational
approach necessary
108
Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines
Operations in the Philippines after 11 September were another component of
Operation Enduring Freedom campaign Referred to as Operations Enduring Freedom-
Philippines the mission was to support the Philippine governmentrsquos counterinsurgency or
counterterrorism efforts to defeat the Abu Sayyaf an extremist-Islamic insurgent group
with ties to Al Qarsquoida Although a classic foreign internal defense mission the actual
mission statement for the post-11 September counterinsurgency operations in the
Philippines uses unconventional warfare as the operational term
On order in support of Operation Freedom Eagle FOB 11 conduct[s] [unconventional warfare] operations in the southern Philippines through by and with the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] to assist the GRP [Government of the Republic of the Philippines] in the destruction of terrorist organizations and separate the population from those Groupsrdquo265
In this definition the correct operational task should have been foreign internal defense or
even counterterrorism not unconventional warfare This mission statement also did not
help the Philippine government that was telling its citizens that the Special Forces were in
the Philippines conducting counterinsurgency training which it called ldquoExercise
Balikatanrdquo which means shoulder to shoulder Because of the negative political
implications for the elected Philippine government they imposed a US force cap limiting
the number of American personnel involved to six hundred266
To date this foreign internal defense operation has been extremely successful
having forced Abu Sayyaf from the Basilan Island and operations continue to defeat this
265Dr C H Briscoe ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
266Robert D Kaplan Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground (New York NY Random House 2005) 146
109
organization while training the Philippine Army to conduct effective counterinsurgency
operations against the other insurgent groups that are a continued threat to the
government Despite the use of unconventional warfare in the original mission statement
this effort has been a classic overt foreign internal defense mission Since there is no
other US military effort in the country it is the decisive operations at the operational-
level and a shaping operation in the larger context of the Global War on Terror Unlike
the operations in Afghanistan the operational approach in the Philippines is direct
support
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operations with the Kurdish resistance organization in Northern Iraq provide an
excellent example of unconventional warfare supporting conventional maneuver forces It
is even more spectacular that an American Special Forces Group in this case 10th
Special Forces Group (Airborne) numbering 5200 personnel (and not all of these were
inside of Northern Iraq) was able to coordinate the efforts of over fifty thousand Kurdish
Peshmerga fighters and to succeed in fixing thirteen of Saddam Husseinrsquos twenty
divisions along a 350-kilometer front267 Also of interest is the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistanrsquos division-sized attack to regain occupied salient along the border of Iran
which was controlled by the Al Qarsquoida affiliated group called Ansar al Islam The
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan were supported by a Special Forces Company working as
advisors to coordinate indirect fires and close air support
267Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Linda Robinson Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces (New York NY Public Affairs 2004) 299
110
From the night of infiltration the longest since World War II into Northern Iraq
the timeline was once again compressed and Special Forces detachments began to engage
the Iraqirsquos along the forward line of troops known as the green-line268 Combat
operations started quickly because the Kurdish resistance was already a large well-
organized insurgent organization that had been working with the CIA for decades and
only needed minimal training in the lethal aid that was provided by the US269 Although
combat operations along the green-line began within hours of the infiltration the first
major event was the attack on Ansar al Islam which began the morning of 28 March
2003 This two day attack saw Ansar al Islam routed and the Kurdish Peshmerga able to
liberate this salient Once this threat was eliminated the focus turned to the green-line
Ten days later Kirkuk and Mosul fell and operations in the North transitioned to what
seemed like postconflict stabilization Special Forces had successfully conducted the
second unconventional warfare operations in less than two years270 One other lesson of
this conflict was the unprecedented work that Special Forces conducted in concert with
the Kurdish underground Most of the Special Forcesrsquo doctrine is focused on ldquoguerrilla
warfarerdquo versus the clandestine arts of working with undergrounds
It is also interesting to note that 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) was unable
to develop a similar capability with Shia in Southern Iraq However unlike the Kurds the
Shia did not have a self-governed sanctuary like the Kurds and were heavily oppressed
268Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq
269Robert Baer See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism (New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001) 171-213
270Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq
111
by the Iraqi regime A final unconventional warfare effort was attempted using Iraqi ex-
patriots who received only rudimentary training prior to being inserted into Iraq
generally called the Free Iraqi Force271 Part of this force had been trained by the
conventional Army in Hungry prior to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Elements of 5th Special Forces Group were given the task to advise the Free Iraqi Forces
but the general sense among those involved was that the these Iraqis did not have the
training nor did the Special Forces advisors have the relationships with these
counterparts to be an effective force This was an example of a good idea gone bad in
many respects Had Special Forces trained these elements developed strong relationships
with their counterparts and then been inserted with them into Iraq as part of the overall
plan their effectiveness as a political tool might have been increased272
The Special Forces would then be called upon to continue the hunt for former
regime elements At the same time they began to train and operate with the 36th
Commandos These operations were successful but the growing insurgency was not
addressed until it had already grown exponentially Special Forces did everything in its
power to keep from conducting advisory support and were finally let of the hook when
271Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Robinson 275 Some confusion rings the FIF which was used to describe two groups of Iraqi ex-patriots one that was trained in civil affairs in Hungary and another element of soldiers Because they were all commonly referred to as FIF this is the convention that is used here
272Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and numerous discussions with individuals involved with this mission in Southern Iraq from August 2004 to the May 2006 and Robinson 299
112
the conventional military out of necessity established the Multi-National Security
Transition Command-Iraq273
Operations in Iraq had once again proven the usefulness of unconventional
warfare and at the same the limitations In the north during the first few days after
infiltration the Special Forces were operating clandestinely until major combat
operations in the north began This was an example of unconventional warfare shaping
the environment for the conventional decisive operation using combat advisors and
support including coordinated air interdiction Finally there was no demobilization of
Kurdish resistance members by Special Forces however there were inquiries into the
demobilization plan for each of the Kurdish factions274 It became quickly evident that
this was a task of enormous size when the current militias may be needed in the future
Because of this these elements were not demobilized but continued to operate as militias
in support of US Special Forces teams conducting foreign internal defense275
In the south efforts failed to generate a resistance force first because of the preshy
existing constraints on the Shia and second the warrsquos tempo was so fast the requirements
for an unconventional warfare effort to support the invasion were overcome by events
The Free Iraqi Forces were another element of the unconventional warfare puzzle in Iraq
but their contribution even politically was less than stellar Had the correct amount of
273Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) Available from httpwwwmnstci iraqcentcommilmissionhtm Internet accessed on 29 September 2004
274Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq April 2003
275Ibid
113
time energy and Special Forces advisors been elements of this program it might have
been more successful
Summary
The history of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense whether overt
or covert provides an interesting backdrop to the argument of whether these two
missions continue to be viable today and into the future Fifty years after the birth of
Special Forces and before the events of 11 September the decision was made that
unconventional warfare as defined by the Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann was no
longer a viable mission and would never be conducted as envisioned Less than three
years later Special Forces has successfully prosecuted two unconventional warfare
campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan using indigenous forces
instead of massive conventional formations and the other a shaping operation in northern
Iraq using the indigenous Kurds However despite these successes the current debate
focuses on the use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense against non-
state actors in a short-sighted version of the previous fifty year argument
114
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS
With an understanding of the historical background of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine this chapter will answer the secondary questions
What is unconventional warfare What is foreign internal defense and How are they
related Also this chapter will determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are applicable against non-state actors the final tertiary question The
combination of these answers will set the conditions to the answer the primary research
question in chapter 5 are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense as
currently defined applicable to current and future Special Forces operations
To answer these questions a comparison must be made between the results of the
last chapter the historical application of these two missions and their current definitions
The analysis will determine if there is a relationship between the two missions and will
conclude with the future of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
special emphasis on their application in the Global War on Terrorism and against non-
state actors
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare
Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition
In introducing this problem unconventional warfare was defined in chapter 1 to
provide the reader a point of departure for determining if the definition adequately
captured the historical application of unconventional warfare Once again the definition
of unconventional warfare is
115
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion276
An analysis of this definition provides some interesting findings when applied to the
historical examples presented in the previous chapter First the definition is correct that
these are ldquomilitary and paramilitary operationsrdquo They are military operations in that
unconventional warfare is used as an armed tool in place of conventional military
operations or to support other conventional operations
Second it is true that most of these operations have been of long duration
however the length of the operation is dependent on three factors first and foremost is
how much risk the political leadership is willing to take by putting Special Forces
soldiers into the target country earlier than declared hostilities to build an effective
insurgent force second if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or if
it is a shaping operation If it is the decisive operation then it will generally take longer
but if it is a shaping operation the length of time historically has been shorter While
historical examples may show that shaping operations are shorter operations such as the
Jedburghs and more recently 10th Group in Northern Iraq would have been more
effective if infiltration had occurred earlier The two contemporary examples of
unconventional warfare Afghanistan and Iraq validate this theory Afghanistan taking
longer because the unconventional warfare effort was the decisive operation so from
infiltration of teams in early October it took until mid-December to overthrow the
276JP 1-02
116
Taliban In Iraq unconventional and conventional operations started at the same time
with the Special Forces having very little time to organize or build up forces and within
three weeks the Coalition had successfully overthrown a much tougher opponent
Saddam Hussein
Based on current and proposed operational concepts which suggest the US
military can successfully defeat a country like Iraq in days versus weeks unconventional
warfare that begins concurrently with combat operations would not be viable as the
unconventional warfare effort in Southern Iraq demonstrate277 In this concept it will be
imperative to begin unconventional warfare months or weeks earlier than the planned
invasion The final conclusion to be drawn from this is that a time standard on this type of
operation may not be of use any longer however there are serious repercussions for not
giving Special Forces the time required to build an effective insurgency or resistance
Third unconventional warfare encompasses organizing training equipping
supporting and directing of the indigenous insurgent organization Each of these
elements are tasks in and of themselves that can be done indirectly directly or in combat
support roles They could be done indirectly such as conducting all of these tasks in a
third-party country or even through a third-party organization or front Examples of the
direct method may include conducting all these tasks in liberated sanctuary or safe areas
that do not include combat Obviously combat support would involve these tasks being
conducted while in a combat environment with the Special Forces or supporting agency
taking the same risks as the insurgents
277Brigadier General David Fastabend ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo (briefing slides for Joint Forces Command 12 April 2004) slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquo
117
Fourth one often missed component of the definition is the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo
This means that this is not a US-only definition but applies universally In other words
the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo could be Iran Syria China Cuba North Korea and even al Qarsquoida
not just the US In fact Abu Musab al-Zarqawirsquos operations in Iraq are nothing more than
an al Qarsquoida ldquoSpecial Forcesrdquo advisors conducting unconventional warfare by providing
training advising funding and a form of precision targeting--the suicide bomber--to the
Sunni insurgents278 Although not part of the definition this also highlights the
requirement to define the type of external support provided indirect direct and combat
in much the same way foreign internal defense support is described279
Fifth the definition attempts to capture all of the oddities of unconventional
warfare including the tactics--guerrilla warfare subversion and sabotage as well as the
environments and signatures of these operations--direct offensive low visibility covert
or clandestine The final part of the definition discusses ldquointelligence gatheringrdquo and
ldquoescape and evasionrdquo However these two elements apply to every Special Forces
mission and are not unconventional warfare specific This has led to the confusion of
skills versus missions the most notable being Advanced Special Operations Techniques
which are advanced skills that apply to all Special Forces missions and therefore cannot
be a mission in itself
278Major D Jones ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo (5 February 2005) scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
279Major (now Lieutenant Colonel) Mark Grdovic Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
118
Lastly the definition fails to capture the essence or purpose of unconventional
warfare--that it is the support to an insurgency Joint Publication 1-02 defines support to
insurgency as the ldquosupport provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of
a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflictrdquo280 This
definition clearly defines the purpose of unconventional warfare in much the same way
the foreign internal defense definition provides a purpose--to help another country free
and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency The purpose is
important as Hy S Rothstein shows because the lack of purpose may be the entire reason
for the confusion about unconventional warfare
Unfortunately the purpose of unconventional warfare is not so easily defined Certainly it must serve the national interests of the United States However there is no clear task so easily defined as the ldquodestruction of the enemy armyrdquo and no method so easily specified as ldquothe direct application of violent forcerdquo Consequently the basic questions about unconventional war have never been adequately answered281
While Hy Rothstein is correct in that the purpose and task is not defined in the definition
if the definition is taken in the context of the unconventional warfare doctrine then they
are readily apparent the task is to support an insurgency against a hostile regime or
occupier and the purpose is to overthrow the regime or remove the occupier Addressing
the task and purpose as outlined here may clear up the misunderstanding of the definition
280JP 1-02
281Hy S Rothstein Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare (Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006) 21
119
Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare
There are seven phases of US-sponsored insurgency the military definition being
unconventional warfare The seven phases are preparation initial contact infiltration
organization buildup combat employment and demobilization282 There have been
arguments as recently as 2001 by senior Special Forces leaders that the seven-phased
unconventional warfare model is no longer valid However based on the most recent
operations the seven-phased model is extremely accurate in describing the support to the
insurgency although the phases may have been compressed by the same circumstances
that affected Jedburgh operations in France--Special Forces were not infiltrated into the
sector until conventional combat operations were already underway283
Phase I of unconventional warfare ldquopreparationrdquo includes the decision to use
military force against a threatening nation the planning and the preparations for its use
and the psychological preparations of the threatening nationrsquos population the
international community and the American public284 Some confusion exists with respect
to another operational term operational preparation of the environment which is easily
confused with this phase of unconventional warfare Thomas OrsquoConnell DOD Assistant
Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict provides some insight into
what operational preparation of the environment is and is not during an interview with
282Department of the Army Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations (Washington DC Department of the Army April 2003) 1-11 to 1-17
283Kershner 2-2
284FM 3-05201 1-11
120
Linda Robinson ldquoItrsquos becoming familiar with the area in which you might have to
work Itrsquos nonhostile recon Itrsquos not intrusive Others without military background
may view it as saber rattling but itrsquos as far from that as you can getrdquo285 Linda Robinson
continues ldquoIn the 1980rsquos OrsquoConnell said special operations forces spent lots of time
preparing to respond to hijackings kidnappings and takeovers of embassies To do that
they visited embassies and airports and examined possible helicopter landing zones and
assault zonesrdquo286
An example of the residual confusion can be found in an article by Colonel
Walter Herd ldquoIn war fighting if your fighting by with amp [sic] through indigenous forces
or if yoursquore collecting intelligence and conducting operational preparation of the
environment by with and through indigenous forces your conducting unconventional
warfarerdquo287 This confusion is politically sensitive in terms of how another nation may
define unconventional warfare If they define it as support to an insurgency then
obviously just conducting operational preparation of the environment if it is mistaken for
the first phase of unconventional warfare could have grave repercussions much like the
mistaken unconventional warfare mission statement during Operation Enduring Freedom-
Philippines discussed in the previous chapter Thomas OrsquoConnell is correct when he
stipulates that operational preparation of the environment can apply to any special
285Linda Robinson ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet accessed on 12 May 2006
286Ibid
287Colonel Walter Herd ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service (13 June 2005) available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet accessed on 12 May 06
121
operations mission from counterterrorism to counterproliferation With respect to
unconventional warfare it may allow long-term relationships with host nation partners to
develop just like they do during normal foreign internal defense training missions that
may ease the initial contact phase of unconventional warfare if that were ever necessary
An example of this relationship--US Special Forces conducted foreign internal
defense in a country then for some reason the government was overthrown and these
former military personnel that had worked with the Special Forces are now the cadre of
the insurgency In fact due to vast number of coalition operations and combined training
exercises the long-term relationships that are developing throughout the world may
change the nature of the second phase--initial contact Instead of initial contact it may be
reminiscent of the CIA contacting former associates in Afghanistan or in Northern Iraq
about a new endeavor--overthrowing the current regime
Phase II ldquoinitial contactrdquo was originally in the CIA charter288 The purpose of
this phase is to conduct ldquoan accurate assessment of the potential resistance and
[arrange] for the reception and initial assistancerdquo of the US operational elements that will
be infiltrated during the next phase289 This is generally a covert or clandestine activity
normally conducted in one of two ways First of all this initial contact is likely to be the
first time that a representative of the US government contacts or approaches an insurgent
organization that has only recently emerged or has never been contacted by the US
before This could be due to any number of reasons such as political or geographic
isolation The second type of approach the inherently easier of the two is with a
288FM 3-05201 1-12 and Bank 160-2 173
289FM 3-05201 1-14
122
previously contacted group that is now in a position of influence that the US would like
to capitalize on to further US national interests Although in contact with US
representatives prior to this time in Phase II this group is being asked for the first time to
work with the US in an unconventional warfare campaign to overthrow the regime As
explained in the description of Phase I having contacts with numerous groups throughout
the world greatly benefits the US and increased the speed of response in a crisis Also
during this phase if the security environment is high risk for US personnel resistance
personnel could be exfiltrated trained in a third party country and when ready inserted
as the only operational element that will infiltrate in phase III--infiltration--instead of US
operational elements
Phase III ldquoinfiltrationrdquo is the entry of the first DOD operational elements into the
insurgentsrsquo areas and has been the doctrinal hand-off between the other governmental
agencies and Special Forces290 This will be the first significant presence in theater
which may now include forward operational bases or other command control or logistics
nodes supporting the committed operational forces In indirect approaches this may not
be the infiltration of US operational elements but newly trained indigenous operational
assets
Phase IV ldquoorganizationrdquo ensures that the indigenous forces are effectively
organized for the buildup phase Phase V291 This has historically included in-processing
issuing weapons pay oaths to the future government and medical screenings However
290FM 3-05201 1-15 3-1 2 and Banks 172-175 and John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
291FM 3-05201 1-15
123
this process has been much more difficult to accomplish in the compressed timelines and
large numbers of insurgents to in-process during the last two unconventional warfare
efforts The concept is sound and protects US interests by providing a record of what
training was conducted and weapons were issued It also provides a means of providing
the emerging government some records of those with training that could work as militias
or conventional soldiers The end state of this phase is an insurgent force that is organized
by function and mission capable of growth if necessary and with the appropriate
command and control structures in place
Phase V ldquobuild-uprdquo is the growth of the insurgency The operational elements
must balance the assigned mission with security and logistical support capability In
insurgency it is not the size that matters but effects and survivability Therefore the size
of the insurgent force is not based on preconceived end strength but on three aspects
effect that needs to be generated for mission accomplishment the constraints of the
security environment and the logistical constraints292 In a less security-constrained
environment with freedom of movement such as liberated areas or sanctuary areas then
larger forces can be organized and built-up In a constrained security environment for
example urban areas smaller cellular networks are used for security and survivability
The last aspect of build-up is the ability of the area to support an insurgent organization
In rural or agrarian societies that mass produce food then the population will be able to
logistically support a larger insurgent group In a constrained environment such as a city
292Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) 1-4 to 1-5
124
or if the counterinsurgency forces have implemented rationing then the area is going to
be less capable to support a movement larger than a small cell
Phase VI ldquocombat employmentrdquo begins with the offensive air or ground
campaign by conventional forces or if purely an unconventional warfare campaign such
as Afghanistan a Special Forces and indigenous ground campaign293 The insurgents will
conduct operations either until link-up with conventional forces or the defeat of the
government or occupying forces leading to the eventual take over of the country If the
insurgents are unable to gain victory or control of the environment they may be forced
into one of the following options (1) conduct a retreat withdrawal or delaying action to
trade space for time (2) disperse into small cells and hide within the population or
restricted terrain (3) establish a defense in restricted terrain if a larger force to regroup
reorganize and prepare for further offensive operations or (4) withdraw to sanctuary
areas which may be in an adjoining country The worst case would be for the insurgents
to be decisively engaged and destroyed
Phase VII ldquodemobilizationrdquo has historically meant disarming and disbanding the
insurgentsrsquo overt military forces such as guerrillas and returning them to their pre-crisis
place in society However if the experiences since 11 September are an indicator in the
future the majority of insurgent forces will transition to local militias and general-purpose
forces in preparation for establishing a secure environment until national police and
military forces can take over this role entirely At such a time as a nation-wide security
force is employed then the remaining ldquomilitiasrdquo or ldquoirregularsrdquo will be demobilized by
their government Historically US unconventional warfare efforts have ended in three
293FM 3-05201 1-17 3-1
125
ways demobilization termination of support with no demobilization and recently in
Iraq and Afghanistan the insurgent forces have become local militias and in some cases
national forces and are not actually demobilized until well into foreign internal defense
operations Because of these three possible outcomes ldquodemobilizationrdquo may not be the
best description of this phase Even in the unconventional warfare doctrinal manual FM
3-05201 demobilization is said to be a ldquomajor activity of transitionrdquo294 ldquoTransitionrdquo is a
much more accurate term than demobilization
Foreign Internal Defense
Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition
Interestingly the epitome of a clear definition is Foreign Internal Defense JP 1shy
02 defines Foreign Internal Defense as ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of
a government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo295 JP 3-071 Joint
Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes
Foreign Internal Defense into three types of support indirect direct (not involving
combat operations) and combat support296 As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories
represent significantly different levels of US diplomatic and military commitment and
riskrdquo297
294Ibid 4-2 295JP 1-02
296Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
297Ibid I-4 126
There is also some debate if Special Forces conduct foreign internal defense or
instead conduct a lesser operation under foreign internal defense such as
counterinsurgency or training since this is an overarching term for a myriad of
interagency programs that span all the elements of a supporting nationrsquos national
power298 The argument is valid although the clarity of this operation comes from the
part of the definition that states the conditions to be met ldquoto free or protect its society
from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo This portion of the definition is the
driving factor behind efforts of Special Forces The fact that this effort takes an
interagency effort supporting another governmentrsquos internal defense and development
plan provides context to the solution which is important in this day of the military
assuming a heavy burden in Iraq and Afghanistan A similar argument could be made
with respect to counterinsurgency and if the US actually conducts this operation or only
supports another countryrsquos counterinsurgency efforts However if insurgency is an
overarching term for any type of armed resistance aimed at either the overthrow of a
government or the removal of an occupying power then there are instances such as Iraq
where the initial counterinsurgency efforts may be a unilateral US effort or as a coalition
As the new government is established the operational approach begins to shift from
combat support In efforts such as the Philippines the effort is direct support to help the
host nation defeat an internal threat while meeting US national objectives of defeating al
Qarsquoida associated networks
298LTC (retired) Mark Lauber Multiple discussion with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
127
So although debate may exist about the role of Special Forces in foreign internal
defense the definition is clear where the unconventional warfare definition is not in the
condition or end-state of the operation The foreign internal defense doctrine also
provides the three levels of support which further clarifies the types of support provided
These two elements may be the solution for clarifying the unconventional warfare
definition
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Although it is easy to understand that unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are different and likely opposite in their end states considering the historical
background presented in the last chapter it is difficult to tie this directly to why words
matter Some may say that as long as the Special Forces operators understands what they
are supposed to be doing on the ground at the tactical level everything else will fall in
place However this argument is much more fundamental than it would seem Regardless
of the similarities in tactics techniques and procedures at the tactical level it is the end
state that matters most Iraq provides a good example of this concept Abu Musab
Zarqawi beheaded prisoners while videotaping the brutal execution and received
relatively minor international reaction Compare this to the global reaction and
international outcry when the US soldiers humiliated the prisoners at Abu Ghriab prison
Although the actions of the US soldiers were extremely unprofessional and an
embarrassment to the US the prisoners did not die horrendous deaths The beheading de-
legitimized the US and Iraqi efforts because it added to the sense of insecurity and
violence and appealed to younger members of the Muslim society that were prone to
128
jihadi-propaganda At the same time the acts of the US soldiers de-legitimized the US
and Iraqi efforts by completely countering the US information operationrsquos efforts to
portray the US as a liberator The US wanted to show how the US was freeing the Iraqis
from the oppression of Saddam yet the Iraqi citizens were being mistreated by their so-
called liberators Had the soldiers understood the concept of legitimacy and that every
one of their actions either helped or hurt the US and the fledgling Iraqi governmentrsquos
legitimacy and with it the chances of success they may not have made these mistakes
The same can be said of US militaryrsquos preference for kinetic effects versus
nonkinetics in counterinsurgency Had the US military understood from the beginning of
the postconflict phase that legitimacy was the most important commodity for US efforts
then ldquocordon and searchrdquo would have been replaced with the ldquocordon and knockrdquo early in
the conflict Instead this concept took nearly two years to be implemented across Iraq
While these are not specifically Special Forces examples they are used here since the
background knowledge is more widely known
Logical Lines of Operations
One method for clarifying the relationship between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense is a logical lines of operation comparison Logical lines of
operations are defined by Dr Jack D Kem as ldquoa cognitive operational framework
planning construct used to define the concept of multiple and often disparate actions
arranged in a framework unified by purpose All logical lines of operation should lead
129
to the [Center of Gravity or COG]rdquo299 In the following examples the short title for the
logical line of operation is labeled and the operational objectives the conditions decisive
points or effects that must be met along that line are defined by boxed number at the
bottom of the chart The corresponding numbered boxes are then placed on the lines of
operations which they support As Dr Kem explains ldquo[operational] objectives in a logical
line of operation depict causal relationships that are both linear and nonlinear
Operational objectives are depicted along a logical line of operation the same operational
objectives may be depicted along more than one logical line of operationrdquo300
While both of the lines of operation charts provide large number of operational
objectives boxes or circles and their corresponding numbers it should be noted that the
actual objectives chosen will depend on the operational considerations--environment
signature relationship and approach In fact some of the objectives could become lines
of operations of their own especially as these lines of operations are translated into
mission orders for subordinate units It should also be noted that the following lines of
operations are for the most part military lines of operations and support or are supported
by the interagency and the conventional military lines of operations across the elements
of national power--diplomatic informational military and economic--when appropriate
Finally because information operations are so important to this type of warfare they are
integral to every objective and therefore there is not an additional information operation
line of operation
299Dr Jack D Kem Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade (Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd) 34-35
300Ibid
130
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 2 provides an example of the logical lines of operation for unconventional
warfare The diagram captures all of the operational considerations-environment
signature relationship and approach and the logical lines of operation The operational
considerations have a significant effect on how the operational objectives are reached
For example one operational objective might be to organize an indigenous resistance
How this is done depends on the environment and the constraints of the operational
signature So in a covert operation conducted in a hostile environment a direct or combat
approach may be used However under the same considerations but in a denied area
where US personnel cannot penetrate the security environment indigenous personnel
may have to be trained in an adjacent country and then reinserted into the operational
area
131
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines
The logical lines shown in figure 2 are examples of the types of Special Forces
specific logical lines of operation along upon which they would apply their
unconventional warfare advising training and equipping capabilities and skills In this
example the logical lines of operation and the longer descriptions are
132
1 Gain Popular Support US advisors ensure that all operations take into
consideration the population Operations are also conducted to show the ineptitude of the
government and its failings to protect the population and its basic needs which would
include attacks on governmental infrastructure
2 Gain International Support Actions must also take into consideration the
international community One of the key elements of this effort is the insurgentrsquos ability
to adhere to the laws of land warfare in order to gain belligerent status throughout the
conflict Other factors include highlighting the governments or occupiers excessive use of
force or human rights violations
3 Develop Insurgent Infrastructure Organize and employ operational
intelligence logistics and political infrastructure infiltrate government agencies develop
capabilities tied to the desired effect provide lethal and nonlethal support
4 Defeat Government forces (or the occupying forces) This is done either
physically or psychologically by attacking the security forces center of gravity and
critical vulnerabilities and capabilities while protecting the insurgent force and US effort
support Coalition land forces during invasion if conducting shaping operations
5 Prepared for Postconflict The insurgents with the help of the US begin to
develop the long-range plans on preparing the environment for the postconflict phases by
establishing underground or shadow governments from the local to national level
identifying the personnel that will take over the key government positions at the
transition secure or protect key infrastructure and psychologically prepare the
population for the transition
133
6 Shape for the Combined Forces Land Component Commander When
unconventional warfare is a shaping operation for a larger conventional decisive
operations then the insurgents set the conditions such as forcing the continued
commitment of forces to rear area security providing intelligence and guides
establishing downed aircrew networks and seizing or securing limited objectives
In this case the center of gravity is the population The unconventional warfare
end state would be the de-legitimized hostile government or an occupying power
overthrown and conditions set for the establishment and protection of a new government
Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis provide a good
example of the logical lines of operation in foreign internal defense information
operations security operations development of security forces reestablishing essential
service developing government infrastructure and promoting economic growth301 All of
the logical lines of operation are aimed at the center of gravity--the people Like the
insurgents the government must gain and maintain its legitimacy from the people The
foreign internal defense end state is a ldquosecure and stable environment maintained by
indigenous forces under the direction of a legitimate national government that is
freely elected and accepts economic pluralismrdquo302
301Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
302Ibid
134
Figure 3 provides another example of possible logical lines of operations again
related to Special Forces foreign internal defense capabilities They are
1 Security Operations The first priority for any government facing an insurgency
is to establish a secure environment through population control measure offensive
operations such as search and attack cordon and search or cordon and knock to deny the
insurgentsrsquo access to the population and freedom of movement
2 Gain Popular Support Gaining and maintaining the support of the population is
the overall goal and path to victory since the population is the center of gravity therefore
it is imperative for long-term success that the population views the government as
legitimate It is equally important for the US effort to be viewed as legitimate versus
being viewed as an occupier or supporting a puppet government
3 Gain International Support It is also important for the governmentrsquos internal
defense efforts to be legitimized accepted and supported by the international community
To be successful most governments will rely on the international community to provide
economic aid or relief of debt and moral support
4 Defeat Insurgents If done correctly the first three lines should de-legitimize
the insurgents and lead to their lasting defeat This line will attack the hard-core
insurgents Some may succumb to offers of amnesty but most will need to be killed or
captured through offensive operations
5 Develop Host Nation Internal Security Internal security forces such as local
and national police forces key facility protection corps diplomat security personnel
coast guard criminal investigation paramilitary forces for counterinsurgency local and
national level special weapons and tactics capabilities will be necessary to defeat the
135
internal threat as a law enforcement matter The coalition forces will provide security for
the entire country Then as the internal security forces are trained the coalition will
transition to only protecting the nation from external threats until such a time as the
actual national military force is trained equipped and can conduct unilateral operations
As in the unconventional warfare model the population is once again the center
of gravity The end state is a legitimate government that the population trusts and is able
to detect and defeat internal and external threats
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation
136
Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 4 now builds on the previous two sections and shows the significance of
the differences between these two operations In the figure the center of gravity is
depicted by the box The sphere floats in this box and its legitimacy is affected by the
success or failures of US support Although both unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are depicted simultaneously only one operation would be conducted at
anyone time against a government Beginning with the unconventional warfare effort on
the left the logical lines of operations affect the legitimacy of the government In a
perfect situation the government is unable to counter this threat and the government loses
legitimacy and ultimately fails leading to the insurgent victory which takes place when
the ldquosphererdquo is dislodged to the right This success can be further enhanced if
conventional forces are added to the equation which in theory will cause a much faster
defeat of the enemy government
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model
137
If on the other hand this is a foreign internal defense mission the US efforts
along the logical lines of operation are aimed at supporting the government and
attempting to defeat or dislocate the insurgency If operations progress well along the
logical lines of operation then the population begins to favor the government pushing
the sphere to the left If done correctly the sphere will continue to move left as the
military in concert with a responsive government provides a secure environment and
will ultimately lead to the separation of the insurgents from the populations Success for
this foreign internal defense is a strong legitimate government capable of identifying and
defeating subversion lawlessness and insurgency on their own
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
There is no discussion in doctrine of a transition between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense In fact the idea that unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are related has never really been articulated In a major operation or
campaign involving conflict and postconflict environments there is an identifiable
transition period between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The
transition between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense happens at the
point when US or Coalition forces have removed the regime and have become the
occupying power or have installed an indigenous governing body even if only for the
interim
US forces had a difficult time identifying that the insurgency was growing
Special Forces understood that something was happening but didnrsquot understand clearly
138
that what was taking place was a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense in both Iraq and Afghanistan Even if they may have suspected that the
transition was taking place finding and neutralizing the top fifty-five of the former
regime in Iraq and senior al Qarsquoida and Taliban leadership in Afghanistan became
priority one This was likely due to the fact that the goal was regime removal but the
order to kill or capture the top fifty-five led to the over-focus on this task by Special
Forces and the other special operations forces
In Iraq more so than Afghanistan the insurgents spent the first two months
establishing their underground or clandestine command control intelligence and lines of
communication networks Once their networks were established and secure then they
began to increase their capability to prosecute terrorism guerrilla warfare and in some
place like Fallujah and An Anbar province a low-level form of mobile warfare having
been able to organize and employ large forces capable of holding terrain for short periods
of time In Afghanistan due to a much smaller population of pro-Taliban and al Qarsquoida
fighters and less urbanized terrain the insurgency has grown much more slowly over the
last five years and will continue to grow at a slower rate By the time that Special Forces
and the conventional military identified a transition to foreign internal defense the
insurgency had already escalated well into the guerrilla warfare stage Had this transition
been identified earlier counterinsurgency operations could have been conducted to
disrupt the insurgentsrsquo clandestine networks before they could be established and the
insurgents could gain the initiative
139
The unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense transition point can be
modeled using ldquothe Staterdquo versus ldquothe Counter-Staterdquo relationship303 The State is the
enemy government or an occupying power The Counter-State would be the insurgent
elements assisted by or in conjunction with US forces The goal is to either remain or
become the State For example the US and its coalition partners including the supported
insurgents are the Counter-State and use military force to overthrow the regime or the
State
The transition point is the point at which the Counter-State successfully defeats
the regime and becomes ldquothe new Staterdquo An important revelation for the new State
happens at the transition point The new State must immediately switch its mindset and
tactics to protect itself in order to now remain the State The transition from the Counter-
State to the State corresponds to the transition between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense as well as the transition between conflict and postconflict
So what happens to ldquothe old Staterdquo At the time the old State becomes the
Counter-State it has two options accept defeat or not If it chooses defeat then the
postconflict nation building will occur more rapidly and with less violence than has been
encountered in Iraq as in the case of Germany and Japan after they were occupied by the
Allies in World War II If the Counter-state does not accept defeat then it begins using
303The State versus Counter-State theory was originally based on a presentation on the relationship between the counterinsurgent and the insurgent by Dr Gordon McCormick US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division presented at the Unconventional Warfare Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC for further discussion of Dr McCormickrsquos ldquoDiamond modelrdquo see Lieutenant Colonel (P) Eric P Wendtrsquos article ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
140
tactics appropriate to its capabilities either political or military or a combination to
regain its State status William Flavin explains these options in his article on conflict
termination ldquoWhen the friendly forces can freely impose their will on the adversary the
opponent may have to accept defeat terminate active hostilities or revert to other types
of conflict such as geopolitical actions or guerrilla warfarerdquo304 The former regime
elements in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are examples of new Counter-States that
have not accepted defeat
The confusion between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
comes much like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan when the US and the Coalition became
the State prior to the end of major combat operations Flavin explains that the transition
point or what he calls conflict termination is ldquothe formal end of fighting not the end of
conflictrdquo305 In Iraq after the regime was defeated combat operations were still ongoing
but inadequate steps were taken to ensure that the US and coalition protected the interim
government and themselves as the State
The fact that Special Forces never positively identified this transition and
continued to conduct what they thought was unconventional warfare versus attempting to
disrupt the budding insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan is important This failure to
identify the shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense had a
detrimental effect on US stabilization operations First the unconventional warfare
mindset focused Special Forcesrsquo continued efforts on hunting former regime elements or
304William Flavin ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet accessed on 24 August 2004
305Ibid
141
on other activities that were tangential or irrelevant to securing the State The mindset
was that the mission was not over until all of the key members of the former regime were
killed or captured In Iraq this focus was provided by the ldquo55-most wantedrdquo deck of
cards In Afghanistan the hunt for Usama bin Laden and his associates continued
unabated with all efforts focused on him
In both cases Special Forces efforts were focused on single individuals with little
regard for other more crucial missions aimed at securing the environment and the State
This allowed the insurgents and the foreign fighters to establish underground elements-shy
command intelligence operational and support networks The establishment of
underground organizations allowed the insurgency to transition from a latent or incipient
phase to the guerrilla warfare phase
The Transition Curve Model
One of the key observations of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is that at
some point in both conflicts the operations shifted from conflict to postconflict and for
Special Forces particularly from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense The
question that arises is where did this ldquoshiftrdquo or ldquotransitionrdquo take place with relation to
time space or effort As shown in figure 5 graphing these operations with respect to
time and overall US effort including unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
operations a pattern emerges that models what would be the ldquobest caserdquo scenario--a nice
clean bell curve that goes from minimal US effort and Special Forces presence in the
peacetime engagement phases and begins to rise as the decision is made to use military
force to overthrow or defeat another government At the decisive point the conflict phase
has been successful and the enemy government is defeated which signifies the shift from 142
conflict to postconflict This model provides a framework for mapping progress and for
planning campaigns
The Transition Curve (see figure 5) was originally developed to model Special
Forcesrsquo participation in full spectrum operations focused first on the seven phases of US-
sponsored unconventional warfare second on the identification of the conflict
termination point which marks the transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense and finally to model a nine-phased foreign internal defense operation
and the eventual return to peacetime engagement306 The graph was developed to correct
the doctrinal misunderstanding surrounding the Special Forces missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan307 The transition point draws a distinct line between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense to reduce confusion
306The nine-phased foreign internal defense model was developed by the author based on his experience in Kosovo to capture the salient steps that must take place to return to prewar levels and peacetime engagement For this study they will only be referred in general terms
307The author developed the graph as an instructor at the Special Forces Detachment Officer Qualification course in September of 2003
143
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model
144
The unconventional warfare phases are the same as discussed above although
ldquotransitionrdquo has been substituted for demobilization For this study a non-doctrinalshy
phased foreign internal defense model was developed and used to allow the phases to be
mapped on the transition curve The nine phases used here start at the transition point
(signifying the establishment of an interim government or occupation decree) phase I-
gain control phase II-secure the environment phase III-humanitarian response phase
IV-training and employment phase V-reconstruction phase VI-sovereignty phase VII-
revitalization phase VIII-neutralization and phase IX-normalization308
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq
Now that the phases have been described the transition curve will be used to model
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq The Afghanistan model (see figure 6) only shows the
initial year to keep the focus on the transition phase and not what is happening today
Afghanistan is unusual since it began with such a small decisive force initially there
were only three Special Forces operational detachments-Alphas later building up to a
total of seventeen by December of 2001 with very few conventional forces engaged until
the transition point and the establishment of the interim government At the transition
point in mid-December 2001 larger US and coalition force build-up took place
However the only areas that were secure were the major cities Everywhere else was
called the ldquowild wild Westrdquo309 The continued lack of security had made it difficult for
any reconstruction effort outside the major cities forcing some nongovernmental
308The nine phases were developed from the authorrsquos combined experiences in Kosovo and Northern Iraq
309Captain T interview
145
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)
146
organizations to withdraw US military civil affairs teams and the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams have become more active in an effort to pacify many of the
unsecured areas310
The level of insecurity has been steadily increasing over time This security
problem can also be tied to the efforts of US military In most cases Special Forces have
not changed their mission since the war began to stay on the offensive against remnants
of the Taliban and Al Qarsquoida Special Forces at this point should simply focus on
establishing a secure environment by taking an active role in training indigenous police
and military forces and acting as advisors to these units as they deploy in the outlying
areas This in turn will make the population feel more comfortable about providing
human intelligence which can then be acted on to neutralize the insurgent remnants
For Iraq (see figure 7) it is obvious that the country is not secure and is potentially getting
less secure as the insurgents continue to disrupt the stability and reconstruction efforts
This difficulty began with the uncontrolled looting at first and now the US is playing
catch-up to the insurgents It was not until the insurgency had become organized that the
coalition began trying to disrupt it instead of disrupting it before it ever had a chance to
get started
The other interesting aspect of this graph is with respect to force numbers
Immediately after the conflict it may have taken 130000 coalition troops to secure the
most difficult areas in and around the ldquoSunni Trianglerdquo However over the first several
months the insurgency began to grow in strength at the same time the conventional army
310Dobbins 140-141
147
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom)
148
was forced to take on multiple roles such as training and advising economic
reconstruction and local governance All of these secondary tasks meant that there were
few forces to establish security Add to this the collapse of the Iraqi police and the
disbandment of the Iraqi Army as well as the US attrition based counterinsurgency
efforts the insurgency grew exponentially during the first two years Now with current
coalition and Iraqi troop levels the security situation is still unfavorable yet there are
nearly twice as many troops with a total of 211700 Iraqi security forces trained and
equipped311 The graph also shows that the US conventional forces have to make up the
differences between the current indigenous force levels and what they need to be Until
this line grows to meet the US Force levels then the US will have to continue to commit
large numbers of ground troops
Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model
One question that arises from this analysis of the phases of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense is how do these phases and the transition point
correlate to the new joint operational phasing Figure 8 provided a visual example of the
joint phases and the corresponding phases of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
It is apparent upon further analysis that how these phases match up to the joint
phasing diagram depends if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or
the supporting effort It should also be noted that operational preparation of the
311Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report (Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005) slide 8
149
environment happens prior to the operational plan being approved by the President In
this sense operational preparation of the environment ends with the approval of the
operational plan and the first phase of unconventional warfare begins Once again this
highlights that operational preparation of the environment is a different mission set from
unconventional warfare and is applicable to any mission
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed
Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Note Numbering is authorrsquos
150
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense have a permanent place in
the future range of military operations doctrine The 2006 US Special Operations
Command posture statement highlights this fact stating ldquo[Special operations forcesrsquo] key
role in the long-term fight will be conducting [unconventional warfare] and [foreign
internal defense] to build foreign capabilities that deny terrorist organizations the ability
to sustain their effortsrdquo312 However in the same posture statement they define
unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo313 What are not clear are the differences in indigenous forces and
host nation forces nor does this definition of unconventional warfare provide the purpose
of working with by and through The idea that unconventional warfare is working by
with and through other forces indigenous or surrogates is not a new concept or point of
confusion found only in the US Special Operations Command posture statement The
Special Forces definition of unconventional warfare found in FM 3-0520 is the same as
defined in JP 1-02 except that through with and by are added ldquo[Unconventional
Warfare] is a broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations predominantly
conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo314
312United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 6 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
313Ibid
314FM 3-0520 2-1
151
One of the difficulties applying unconventional warfare as an overarching term to
the war on terror is the context of the doctrine which shows that unconventional warfare
is used to support armed indigenous forces aimed at overthrowing the government of a
nation-state and therefore does not apply against the than it cannot be used against a non-
state actor Other than Afghanistan al Qarsquoida has not yet successfully occupied any other
foreign nations Operations using indigenous or surrogate forces that are not aimed at the
overthrow of a government would more precisely be called foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism or counter-proliferation All of
these operations can doctrinally be conducted with surrogate forces but are not
unconventional warfare
This subtlety is another important aspect of why words matter An example of this
is the CIArsquos training of an Afghan unit to capture Usama bin Laden in 1998--a classic
example of counterterrorism not unconventional warfare as some would stipulate315
Another example of this concept comes from World War II when Aaron Bank was given
a mission to ldquoraise a company strength unit of German defectors military and civilian
conduct subversion sabotage and guerrilla actions and above all capture high-ranking
Nazisrdquo in what was believed to be their last holdout areas in the Austrian Alps316 Merely
by the subversion sabotage and guerrilla warfare aspects of this mission it would seem
to be a form of unconventional warfare however due to the short duration and limited
315ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo CBS News (15 September 2004) available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet accessed on 24 April 2006
316Bank 72-74
152
objectives of the mission of harassment versus overthrow it better qualifies it as a direct
action mission
In determining the future usefulness of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense three threat models have to be addressed those within the borders of a
state those that transnational or non-state actors and those in the amorphous
ldquoungoverned spaces or failed nations
In the first case threats within the border of a nation unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense will always have important roles The possible nation state
threats are hostile nations (Iraq) rogue nations (North Korea) states that sponsor
terrorism and insurgency (Iran and Syria) and states that are seized or controlled by al
Qarsquoida most likely within the caliphate boundary are exactly what unconventional
warfare was developed for--to overthrow regimes by supporting insurgency
As the previous example and the historical analysis demonstrate the future
foreign internal defense possibilities and applications are endless As has been witnessed
foreign internal defense can be used across the spectrum of conflict--from peacetime to
high-intensity postconflict environments--where a government friendly or passive to the
US needs help to effectively combat growing or potential insurgency subversion or
lawlessness Thus foreign internal defense is likely to be the primary mission due to the
number of friendly countries that face insurgency while unconventional warfare will be
reserved for the cases where there is a hostile rogue failed or terrorist-sponsoring
country
The second case is against non-state actors or transnational threats that threaten
regions or seek to upset the global balance and are not bound by borders The problem
153
with applying unconventional warfare against a non-state actor that is not in control of a
nation is that unconventional warfare was designed for use against a hostile government
or occupying power within a state Al Qarsquoida is neither a state nor an occupier as of yet
although the Taliban-led and al Qarsquoida supported Afghanistan could be the closest model
Al Qarsquoida and its associated movements are better classified as a global insurgency All
three of these elements eliminate unconventional warfare as the correct overall operation
term to be used to counter al Qarsquoida or other non-state actors The ldquoglobalrdquo aspect of this
insurgency also does not support the use of foreign internal defense as an overarching
term either since the problem is bigger than a single nation yet it is related to the defense
of the current global systems or global status quo In these cases there will be some
countries that are threatened by insurgencies supported by non-state actors such as the
insurgencies in Iraq and the Philippines in which case foreign internal defense will the
operation that has to be conducted to defeat these elements In the case of a hostile
regime that either supports a non-state actor is a puppet of the non-state actor or in fact
has been taken over by the non-state actor than unconventional warfare will be used to
overthrow these unfriendly regimes
The final threat model is that of the failed nation or ungoverned spaces Failed
states are best described as states that have no or minimally functioning governments
The Taliban run Afghanistan without its al Qarsquoida influences provides a good example
of a failed nation Even in failed states a State and a Counter-State can be identified In
the case of a hostile State unconventional warfare could be used by supporting the
Counter-State The Taliban State and the Northern Alliance Counter-State in Afghanistan
prior to 11 September may provide a good example of this relationship In the case of a
154
failed nation but with a friendly State foreign internal defense could be conducted to
strengthen the legitimacy and capability of the friendly State in hopes of developing a
functioning government
These failed states and the above premises on the State and Counter-State could
also easily be described as ungoverned spaces as well but in the context of this analysis
ungoverned spaces are areas where there is no effective government control even though
these areas are within the borders of a sovereign nation This area may also extend across
the border into neighboring countries as well such as the tri-border region in South
American where Brazil Paraguay and Argentina intersect and there is no effective
government control which enables criminal activity to thrive In these cases the solution
is to conduct foreign internal defense to help the government regain control of the
ungoverned spaces as the US tried during the White Star program in eastern Laos during
the Vietnam War Another solution when there is no viable government to support in
these efforts is to use a United Nations sanctioned operation or another international
coalition effort such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to move in and provide
security and build a government The US could do this unilaterally but based on the
current operations and domestic support it is unlikely that the US commit to such a
mission This mission would be the far end of the foreign internal defense scale and
would resemble the US efforts in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and no effective
government system operating
The discussion on Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense roles in the future is further complicated by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense
Review which uses the undefined term ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo to
155
describe the campaign against al Qarsquoida and its associated movements Global
unconventional warfare defined within the complete doctrinal context of unconventional
warfare means ldquosupport to global insurgencyrdquo Certainly this was not the intention of
calling it unconventional warfare but it does bring up a larger debate about the missions
that Special Forces will be conducting One problem is the misunderstanding of the
definition and doctrine of unconventional warfare and the other problem is that there is a
sense that anything that is not conventional must be unconventional with little thought
going into the meaning of the words Although well-intentioned at some point the use of
this terminology will likely have some semblance to the failed attempts in the summer of
2005 to change the global war on terror to global struggle against violent extremism or
war on extremism because the global war on terror did not correctly describe the war In
the same way ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo has some political baggage based on the
missing doctrinal context of unconventional warfare definition
This leads to the final question ldquowhat is the role of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense in the context of the Global War on Terrorrdquo Regardless of how
ldquotransnationalrdquo these movements are the sovereignty of the nation-states is still going to
constrain US and coalition operations Because of this there are really three situations
that unconventional warfare will be used for
1 Operations against Rogue Hostile Regimes or State Sponsors of Terrorism--a
proven operational concept having been used successfully twice since 11 September in
Afghanistan and Iraq These operations will either be the decisive or shaping operation
depending on the political sensitivity of the target country
156
2 Operations against what will be referred to in this study as al Qarsquoida states (AQ
States) in which al Qarsquoida is able to overthrow one or more of the regimes within the
boundary of the 7th century caliphate Unconventional warfare would be used to
overthrow these regimes
3 Operations in failed states when there is no effective government but an
element within the population such as a tribe or ethnic group is the State for all intents
and purposes In this case unconventional warfare will be used to overthrow this State
In each one of these cases as soon as the unconventional warfare or conventional
operations have been successful then they will shift to foreign internal defense in the
same way Afghanistan and Iraq transitioned to foreign internal defense Therefore
regardless of the operation the end state will likely include foreign internal defense
conducted once a friendly government is established
For this very reason foreign internal defense will continue to play a significant
role in US engagement strategies In a flashback to the past foreign internal defense will
be conducted for three reasons as well
1 Primarily to protect friendly states threatened by insurgency especially al
Qarsquoida sponsored insurgency such as the Sunni insurgency in Iraq supported by al
Qarsquoida affiliated Abu Musab Zarqawi or state-sponsored insurgency such as the Shirsquoa
insurgency supported by Iran
2 Foreign internal defense during peacetime engagement under the Theater
Security Cooperation Plan or during postconflict mission after the transition from
unconventional warfare and or conventional operations
157
3 To gain control of ungoverned spaces by supporting a weak government or
some portion of the population that is in these areas and will support US and coalition
efforts such as the Hmong tribesmen in Laos to regain control of these areas In extreme
cases international intervention could be used such as United Nations or other
internationally recognized coalitions or alliances to gain control establish a secure
environment and establish a government able to gain and maintain control
Therefore unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense will be the
primary missions of Special Forces in the future Figure 9 provides the actual framework
for Special Forces role within the Global War on Terror The figure shows clearly the
types of operations that will be conducted depending on the situation Analysis of the US
Special Operations Command threat model and the types of operations required for each
threats pictured in figure 10 also supports the above conclusions
Finally figure 9 also shows the relationship between operational preparation of
the environment and other missions Operational preparation of the environment is not
unconventional warfare but applies to every Special Forces missions Figure 9 shows
operational preparation of the environment as the precursor to different types of
operations Because this mission has its own tasks associated with it this may be the
operation that emerges as a new operational concept Another concept shown on the map
is counterinfrastructure instead of counterterrorism to signify that this mission can be
carried out against a regimersquos infrastructure or the infrastructure of an insurgent group
This would also be a more proactive mission versus the current counterterrorism
operations and could easily use ldquosurrogatesrdquo or indigenous forces to conduct these
operations yet would not be unconventional warfare
158
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort
159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model Source United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 4 available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedu les3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006 Note Missions and arrows were added by the author and are not found in any US Special Operations Command publication
Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency
For those that argue that unconventional warfare can be used to defea t an
insurgency David Galula provides some interesting insights First he explains wh y
insurgent warfare does not work for the counterinsurgent
Insurgency warfare is specifically designed to allow the camp afflicted with congenital weakness to acquire strength progressively while fighting The counterinsurgent is endowed with congenital strength for him to adopt the insurgentrsquos warfare would be the same as for a giant to try to fit into dwarfrsquos clothing317
317David Galula Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice (St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005) 73
160
David Galula also explains that if the counterinsurgent could operate as a guerrilla he
would have to have the support of the population which in turn means that the actual
insurgents do not have the support Therefore if the insurgent did not have the support of
the populous in the first place then there would be no need for the counterinsurgent to
operate in these areas However he does not discount the use of commando-style
operations in limited forms As he notes ldquoThey cannot however represent the main form
of the counterinsurgentrsquos warfarerdquo318
Another applicable comment from David Galula has to do with the possibility for
the counterinsurgent ldquoto organize a clandestine force able to defeat the insurgent on his
own termsrdquo the essence of the Global Unconventional Warfare concept As David Galula
explains
Clandestinity [sic] seems to be another of those obligations-turned-into-assets of the insurgent How could the counterinsurgent whose strength derives precisely from his open physical assets build up a clandestine force except as minor and secondary adjunct Furthermore room for clandestine organizations is very limited in revolutionary war Experience shows that no rival--not to speak of hostile--clandestine movements can coexist for long319
Summary
This chapter answered the secondary questions showing that unconventional
warfare is the support to insurgency while foreign internal defense is the support given to
a government to help that government defeat subversion lawlessness and insurgency
The description and subsequent models of the transition from unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense help to clarify the relationship between these two operations The
318Ibid
319Ibid
161
final question on the role of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
respect to non-state actor determined that they are applicable as individual operations
depending on the enemy threat in each country but that global unconventional warfare is
a misnomer This chapter sets the stage to answer the primary question in chapter 5
162
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This study set out to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as currently defined are still applicable to contemporary and future Special
Forces operations Without a doubt the most confusing aspect of this fifty-year old
debate is the definition of unconventional warfare
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion320
Although some would argue that the broad statement provides leeway in its
application what has actually happened is that in providing leeway Special Forces have
historically misunderstood the most basic element of the definition--support to
insurgency Much of the blame for this confusion is evident in the historical analysis
presented in chapter 3--Special Forces leaders were trying to provide a niche mission that
would assure Special Forcesrsquo relevance throughout the turbulent periods after Vietnam
and with the end of the Cold War
However the attempts to make unconventional warfare an overarching term and
the birth of the idea that unconventional warfare is any operation conducted by with and
through an indigenous force has had a grave impact on the forcesrsquo understanding of
unconventional warfare With the rise of the non-state actor there is new emphasis to
320JP 1-02
163
adapt unconventional warfare to this new threat regardless if it is the correct mission or
not The bottom line with respect to the current definition of unconventional warfare is
that taken in the context of unconventional warfare history and current doctrine it is
applicable to todayrsquos contemporary environment as evidenced by operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq but by itself could be and is inadvertently applied to missions it
was never intended As the analysis shows in chapter 4 unconventional warfare has a
significant place in future Special Forcesrsquo operations when regime removal is necessary
as in the cases of rogue or hostile regimes (Saddam Husseinrsquos regime) regimes that
support terrorist or global insurgent organization (Taliban) and finally if al Qarsquoida
successfully seizes power in a country within the caliphate In each of these cases
unconventional warfare will be a weapon of choice as either the decisive operation or as a
shaping operation for other elements of national power
As for foreign internal defense the definition is clear and based on the analysis of
the history of foreign internal defense it will without a doubt continue to be applicable
to future Special Forcesrsquo operations This is especially true in operations to overthrow
regimes through conventional operations and or unconventional warfare operations
which will rollover to foreign internal defense The clarity of the definition leaves little
room for misunderstanding ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a
government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo321 The foreign internal
defense definition provides one significant aspect that the unconventional warfare
definition does not--it provides the conditions that are to be met by the operations ldquoto free
321Ibid
164
and protect a society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo which leaves little
doubt of the purpose of these operations from peacetime engagement to high-intensity
and high-threat environments like Vietnam and Iraq The foreign internal defense
doctrine defines three types of support--indirect direct and combat--which provides
further clarity In todayrsquos environment and the future the key to success against the
global insurgency will be through foreign internal defense to enable US partner nations to
do exactly what the definition says protect themselves from ldquosubversion lawlessness and
insurgencyrdquo all three ingredients necessary to deny al Qarsquoida and its associated
movement sanctuary support freedom of movement and access to weapons of mass
destruction
Special Forces is the only branch specifically trained and ready to conduct these
operations Although the conventional military is doing its best to develop military
training teams they will never have the training experience and cultural awareness in
these types of operations that Special Forces bring to the table Special Forces is standing
in the door of a new paradigm shift The branch will either stay its current course
continually looking for relevancy or it can seize the opportunity and take its place as a
decisive or shaping force able to conduct unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as a key economy of force component of the Joint Forces range of military
operations
Recommendations
First unconventional warfare should be defined as operations by a state or non-
state actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or an
165
occupying power in another country322 In this definition insurgency would an inclusive
term for resistance or partisan operations as well Like foreign internal defense there
would be three types of support or operational approach indirect direct and combat the
application of which would depend on the political and security environments323 This
would make the definition of unconventional warfare as clear as the current definition of
foreign internal defense and would finally end the confusion by providing a purpose
Also like the foreign internal defense definition the new unconventional warfare
definition would be universal In other words external support could be provided by Iran
Syria China Cuba North Korea and even Al Qarsquoida
With regards to the three types of support or operational approach as used
throughout this study each would be used depending on the environment whether hostile
or denied Indirect support would be used when the environment is denied The indirect
approach would focus on the insurgencyrsquos self-sufficiency by indirectly providing lethal
and nonlethal aid money and training through a third party or in the case of training in
a third party country or in the US as was done with the Tibetans Direct support would
include all aspects of support but would put Special Forces in sanctuary or liberated
areas within the vicinity of the conflict but not in direct contact with the hostile
governmentrsquos forces as was the case with the Contras However during this type of
322Jones Although part of the recommended definition in the above mentioned article upon further research the author has dropped ldquoconstitutedrdquo from the definition since there are fewer ldquoconstitutedrdquo or even governments as historically defined in the likely hotspots of today Instead more and more governments are like the Taliban--not a government in the true sense of the word but strong enough to seize and maintain power as the ldquostaterdquo versus some minority or weaker element the ldquocounter-staterdquo such as the Northern Alliance
323Grdovic
166
support there could be risk to Special Forces personnel if the hostile government
launched punitive strikes or raids into these areas to disrupt or destroy the insurgents
Finally if the operational approach is combat support than Special Forces would conduct
all of the supporting tasks mentioned above and would participate in combat operations
as advisors to the insurgency and coordinate other US assets such as close air support
Second the post-11 September unconventional warfare operations also validated
the seven-phase concept of US sponsored insurgency However the final phase
demobilization would be better served if called transition Thus Special Forces would
begin to shape the postconflict environment as combat operations ended to ensure success
in the stability phase by identifying potential threats providing security and transitioning
the insurgents into local militia units that would disrupt any attempts by former regime
elements to establish an insurgent infrastructure The unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense transition point should also be captured within unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine
Third ensure a broader understanding of unconventional warfare throughout the
military and interagency by describing unconventional warfare in detail in core joint and
service doctrinal manuals Currently for example unconventional warfare is not
mentioned in the 3-0 family of capstone Joint publications or the Armyrsquos field manual on
operational doctrine Instead support to insurgency with no reference to unconventional
warfare is described in single paragraph under stability operations The success of
unconventional warfare in Afghanistan demonstrated that SOF can perform economy of
force operations by supporting insurgencies the Northern Alliance in this case and that
these combined forces can conduct decisive offensive operations SOFrsquos unconventional
167
warfare efforts in Northern Iraq advising the Kurds also validated the concept of using
insurgents to conduct shaping operations in support of conventional forces
Fourth the Global Unconventional Warfare campaign needs to be dropped in
favor of a better term that captures the counterinsurgency nature of this war possibly
global counterinsurgency counter global insurgency global internal defense or global
counter irregular warfare To do this the problem global insurgency must first be
defined A recommended definition is operations by one or more networked non-state
entities with the goal of overthrowing or dramatically changing the global status quo or
disrupting globalization The possible definition for the counter to this would be similar
to the foreign internal defense definition but on a grand-strategy scale
A broad range of direct and indirect interagency coalition special operations and conventional military efforts to defeat global insurgency subversion and lawlessness by denying sanctuary freedom of movement external support mechanisms mass popular support access to weapons of mass destruction psychological and propaganda effects operational intelligence and armed offensive capabilities
Under this definition a single overarching term may not be needed but it would be the
combined ldquoeffectsrdquo of operations across the globe For Special Forces this would include
unconventional warfare foreign internal defense operational preparation of the
battlefield direct action counterterrorism counterproliferation special reconnaissance
and a new term counterinfrastructure Counterinfrastructure would entail destroying
defeating disrupting or capturing hostile regime non-state actor or insurgent
infrastructure This is a more proactive type of operation than counterterrorism which is
generally reactive in nature This operational term describes the current global
interdiction of al Qarsquoida and associated movements as well as the operation taken to
168
capture former regime elements and insurgent leaders in Iraq This operation would also
include the use of surrogates
Fifth operational preparation of the environment needs to be added to the core
special operations forces core mission or more correctly operations This operation is
not unconventional warfare but an operation in and of itself that can set the conditions
for the execution of the other core tasks By making it a stand-alone mission specific
doctrine could be published for operational preparation of the environment instead of
capturing this doctrine in other core mission doctrine which adds to the confusion
Sixth if unconventional warfare becomes an overarching term for operations by
with and through indigenous or surrogate forces then the confusion over unconventional
warfare will continue A possible solution would be to define each of the Special Forces
missions separately under this umbrella term The above recommended unconventional
warfare definition would instead be used to define a new term such as support to
insurgency or STI The big three ldquoby with and throughrdquo missions would be support to
insurgency operational preparation of the environment and foreign internal defense
However the other operational terms counter-proliferation counterterrorism counter-
infrastructure direct action and special reconnaissance could also be conducted by
through and with indigenous and surrogate forces and use the same three operational
approaches as outlined for unconventional warfare When used this way they could also
fall under this overarching unconventional warfare term324
324Jones On further analysis of this problem this is a better solution than the one outlined in the Why Words Matter paper which suggested support to insurgency and operations against non-state actors would fall under this overarching term Based on the US Special Operations Command 2006 posture statement the use of surrogates and
169
Seventh this study has also highlighted a deficiency in the joint doctrinersquos
definition of insurgency The current joint definition for insurgency does not address
resistance or partisan operations against an occupier reading ldquoan organized movement
aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo325 Instead of this definition a new recommended definition for insurgency is
ldquoan organized movement or resistance aimed at the overthrow of a constituted
government or removal of an occupying power through the use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo
Finally one of the byproducts of this study was the identification of a trend which
tries to leverage ldquounconventional warfare skillsrdquo to separate Special Forces from the rest
of the special operations community326 To some these are the skills that make up the
warrior-diplomat capability of Special Forces However Special Forces soldiers use these
same skills regardless of the mission and this is what sets Special Forces apart If Special
Forces are truly ldquospecialrdquo compared to the rest of the special operations community it is
because of the nature of their training and mindset that have not been readily transferable
to other special operation forces Therefore these unconventional warfare skills are
actually Special Forces skills and should be captured in this manner to not only leverage
indigenous forces during other types of operations must be clarified based on the noted fact that direct action and counterterrorism were not listed as one of the operational missions of Special Operation Forces having been rolled up under unconventional warfare
325JP 3-0 V-13
326Rothstein 102
170
their uniqueness but also to reduce the confusion between unconventional warfare the
operation and a set of skills
Areas for Further Research
During the research of this project numerous other areas of research came to light
that warrant further study
First was the Special Forces direct action and intelligence collection focus the
most efficient use of these high-demand and low-density assets or could they have been
employed as trainers and advisors to produce a larger positive effect on the growth and
success of the Iraqi and Afghani security forces while simultaneously reducing the
insurgency
Second would a large-scale employment of Special Forces detachments be a
better long-term choice for training and advising than the conventional military training
team concept This is based on the premise that US domestic support for the prolonged
operations in Iraq is a direct reflection of continued conventional force deployments
Therefore these deployments could be shortened by using Special Forces to conduct
economy of force operations and allowing the conventional military to withdraw
Third conduct a detailed study of counterinfrastructure operations This would
include not only unilateral US efforts but host-nation partner and surrogate operations
and operations using former elements that have been ldquoturnedrdquo in what are called ldquopseudoshy
operationsrdquo
Last could a Special Forces deployable task force and the related command and
control structure and training capacity be able to develop a host nation military and
internal security forces and systems filling the role of the Multi-National Security 171
Transition Command ndashIraq This idea comes from the doctrinal based premise that an
operational detachment alpha can train equip and employ an indigenous battalion
Therefore based on a logical progression of capabilities a Special Forces company also
known as an operational detachment bravo should be able to train and advise an
indigenous brigade a Special Forces battalion an operational detachment charlie should
be capable of training and advising an indigenous division a Special Forces Group then
would be able to train and advise an indigenous Corps and a deployable Special Forces
task force headquarters such as a Joint Forces Special Operations Component
commander of appropriate general officer rank and his staff would be able to train and
advise an indigenous Army This final level would be capable and prepared to do exactly
what the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq has done but instead of
being an ad hoc organization it would be an inherent Special Forces capability and
responsibility
172
GLOSSARY
Antiterrorism Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and propert to terrorist acts to include limited response and containment by local military forces Also called AT (JP 1-02)
Biometrics The measuring of physical human features to ensure that a person once registered can be identified later even if his or her identity documents or facial characteristics change(US Army Battle Command Battle Lab) Campaign Plan A plan for a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space (JP 1-02)
Civil Administration An administration established by a foreign government in (1) friendly territory under an agreement with the government of the area concerned to exercise certain authority normally the function of the local government or (2) hostile territory occupied by United States forces where a foreign government exercises executive legislative and judicial authority until an indigenous civil government can be established Also called CA administration (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Designated Active and Reserve component forces and units organized trained and equipped specifically to conduct civil affairs activities and to support civil-military operations Also called CA (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Activities Activities performed or supported by civil affairs that (1) enhance the relationship between military forces and civil authorities in areas where military forces are present and (2) involve application of civil affairs functional specialty skills in areas normally the responsibility
Civil-Military Operations The activities of a commander that establish maintain influence or exploit relations between military forces governmental and nongovernmental civilian organizations and authorities and the civilian populace in a friendly neutral or hostile operational area in order to facilitate military operations to consolidate and achieve operational US objectives Civil-military operations may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of the local regional or national government These activities may occur prior to during or subsequent to other military actions They may also occur if directed in the absence of other military operations Civil military operations may be performed by designated civil affairs by other military forces or by a combination of civil affairs and other forces Also called CMO (JP 1-02)
Combatant Command A unified or specified command with a broad continuing mission under a single commander established and so designated by the President through the Secretary of Defense and with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of
173
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Combatant commands typically have geographic or functional responsibilities (JP 1-02)
Combatant Commander A commander of one of the unified or specified combatant commands established by the President (JP 1-02)
Combatting Terrorism Actions including antiterrorism (defensive measures taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist acts) and counterterrorism (offensive measures taken to prevent deter and respond to terrorism) taken to oppose terrorism throughout the entire threat spectrum Also called CBT (JP 1-02)
Conventional Forces (1) Those forces capable of conducting operations using nonnuclearweapons (2) Those forces other than designated special operations forces (JP 1-02)
Counterdrug Those active measures taken to detect monitor and counter the productiontrafficking and use of illegal drugs Also called CD (JP 1-02)
Counterinsurgency Those military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency Also called COIN (FM 1-02 1-47)
Counterintelligence Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage other intelligence activities sabotage or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof foreign organizations or foreign persons or international terrorists activities Also called CI (JP 1-02)
Counterterrorism Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent deter preempt and respond to terrorism Also called CT (JP 1-02)
Country Team The senior in-country US coordinating and supervising body headed by the chief of the US diplomatic mission and composed of the senior member of each represented US department or agency as desired by the chief of the US diplomatic mission (JP 1-02)
Direct Action Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions by special operations forces or special operations-capable units to seize destroy capture recover or inflict damage on designated personnel or material (FM 1-02 1-60)
Foreign Internal Defense Participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency Also called FID (JP 1-02)
Host Nation A nation that receives the forces andor supplies of allied nations coalition partners andor NATO organizations
174
Hostile Environment Operational environment in which hostile forces have control as well as the intent and capability to effectively oppose or react to the operations a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Indigenous Native originating in or intrinsic to an area or region (FM 3-0520)
Insurgency An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Interagency Coordination Within the context of Department of Defense involvement the coordination that occurs between elements of Department of Defense andengaged US Government agencies nongovernmental organizations and regional and international organizations for the purpose of accomplishing an objective (JP 1-02)
Internal Defense And Development The full range of measures taken by a nation to promote its growth and to protect itself from subversion lawlessness and insurgency It focuses on building viable institutions (political economic social and military) that respond to the needs of society Also called IDAD (JP 1-02)
Joint Task Force A joint force that is constituted and so designated by the Secretary of Defense a combatant commander a subordinate unified command commander or an existing joint task force commander Also called JTF (JP 1-02)
Military Assistance Advisory Group A joint Service group normally under the military command of a commander of a unified command and representing the Secretary of Defense which primarily administers the US military assistance
Military Civic Action The use of preponderantly indigenous military forces on projects useful to the local population at all levels in such fields as education training public works agriculture transportation communications health sanitation and others contributing to economic and social development which would also serve to improve the standing of the military forces with the population (US forces may at times advise or engage in military civic actions in overseas areas) (JP 1-02)
Military Support to Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Department of Defense activities that support US Government plans for stabilization security reconstruction and transition operations which lead to sustainable peace while advancing US interests (DoDD 300005)
Paramilitary Forces Forces or groups distinct from the regular armed forces of any country but resembling them in organization equipment training or mission (JP 1-02)
Permissive Environment Operational environment in which host country military and law enforcement agencies have control as well as the intent and capability to
175
assist operations that a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Special Operations Operations conducted by specially organized trained and equipped military and paramilitary forces to achieve military political economic or informational objectives by unconventional military means in hostile denied or politically sensitive areas (FM 1-02 1-173)
Special Operations Forces Those Active and Reserve Component forces of the Military Services designated by the Secretary of Defense and specifically organized trained and equipped to conduct and support special operations Also called SOF (JP 1-02)
Special Reconnaissance Reconnaissance and surveillance actions conducted by special operations forces to obtain or verify by visual observation or other collection methods information concerning the capabilities intentions and activities of an actual or potential enemy or to secure data concerning the meteorological hydrographic or geographic characteristics of a particular area (FM 1-02 1-174)
Stability Operations Operations that promote and protect US national interests by influencing the threat political and information dimensions of the operational environment through a combination of peacetime development cooperative activities and coercive actions in response to a crisis (FM 1-02 1-175)
Stability Operations Military and civilian activities conducted across the spectrum from peace to conflict to establish or maintain order in States and regions (DoDD 300005)
Subversion Action designed to undermine the military economic psychological or political strength or morale of a regime See also unconventional warfare (JP 1shy02)
Support to Counterinsurgency Support provided to a government in the military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions it undertakes to defeat insurgency (JP 1-02)
Support to Insurgency Support provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Surrogate someone who takes the place of or acts for another a substitute (FM 3-0520)
Terrorism The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political religious or ideological (JP 1-02)
176
Transition Point Authorrsquos definition for the point of phase shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense operations or conventionally a shift from conflict to postconflict
Uncertain Environment Operational environment in which host government forces whether opposed to or receptive to operations that a unit intends to conduct do not have totally effective control of the territory and population in the intended operational area (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Unconventional Warfare A broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes but is not limited to guerrilla warfare subversion sabotage intelligence activities and unconventional assisted recovery Also called UW (JP 1-02)
177
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams Thomas K Military Doctrine and the Organization Culture of the United States Army Ann Arbor University Microfilms 1990
________ US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998
Ancker III Clinton J Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing Fort Leavenworth KS Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005
Ancker III Clinton J and Michael D Burke ldquoDoctrine for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Military Review (July-August 2003) Available from httpwwwfindarticles comparticles mi_m0PBZis_4_83ai_109268858 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004)
Andrade Dale and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
Asprey Robert B War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994
Ayers Cynthia E ldquoIraqi Resistance to Freeedom A Frommian Perspectiverdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 68-84
Baer Robert See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001
Bailey Cecil E ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
Bank Aaron USA Colonel Retired From OSS to Green Berets New York Pocket Books 1986
Barker Geoffrey T A Concise History of US Army Special Operations Forces Fayetteville NC Anglo-American Publishing Company 1988
Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet Accessed on 3 May 2006
Bernhard Michael ldquoThe Lessons of a Successful Military Occupationrdquo Strategic Insight (May 2003)
Biddle Stephen ldquoSpecial Forces and the Future of Warfare Will SOF Predominate in 2020rdquo US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute 2004
178
Book Elizabeth ldquoRole of Special Ops Evolves Over Timerdquo National Defense Magazine February 2002 Available from httpwwwnationaldefensemagazineorgarticle cfmId=719 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004
Boyatt Mark D Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
Boykin William G ldquoVigilant Warrior 2002 War Game Demonstrates ARSOFrsquos Value to the Objective Forcerdquo Special Warfare (September 2001) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442223 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
________ Major General ldquoFrom the Commandantrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 1
Briscoe C H Dr ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
Brook Robin Sir ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992
Brown Frederic J Lieutenant General Retired ldquoAmericarsquos Army Expeditionary and Enduring-Foreign and Domesticrdquo Military Review (November-December 2003) Available from httpwwwarmymilprof_writingvolumesvolume2february_ 20042_04_4_pfhtml Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Cassidy Robert M Major ldquo41 (sic) Why Great Powers Fight Small Wars Badlyrdquo Military Review (September-October 2002 English Edition) Available from httpwwwcgscarmymilmilrevenglishSepOct02cassidyasp Internet Accessed on 31 October 2003
Cavallora Gina ldquoIraqis get the basics Drill sergeants deploy to the war zonerdquo The Army Times (June 2004) 22
CBS News ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo 15 September 2004 Available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet Accessed on 24 April 2006
Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd
Charters David and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984
179
Chiarelli Peter W Major General and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
Cline Lawrence E ldquoThe New Constabularies Planning US Military Stabilization Missionsrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 14 no 3 (Autumn 2003) 158-184
Coffey Ross Major ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
Collins John M ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 22-27
Corum James S and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003
Cox Matthew ldquorsquoThey are so undisciplinedrsquo Iraqi forces learn ropes of battle but curve is steeprdquo The Army Times 27 (September 2004) 8
Crawley Vince and Nicole Gaudiano ldquoAbu Ghraib Investigator 4th Star lsquoUnlikelyrsquo For Sanchez-CIA lsquoGhost Detaineesrsquo Raise Lawmakersrsquo Irerdquo The Army Times 20 (September 2004) 12
Crerar J H Colonel Retired US Army ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37-39
Daugherty William J Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004
Defend America News ldquoIraq Time Linerdquo Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milIraqTimeLinehtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Department of Defense 2003-2004 SOF Posture Statement Special OperationsLow-Intensity Conflict Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpolicysolic 2003_2004_SOF_Posture_Statementpdf Internet Accessed on 10 April 2004
________ Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005 Available from httpwwwdticmil futurejointwarfareconceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet Accessed on 17 February 2006
________ Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 300005 Military Support for Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations Washington DC GPO 2005
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2004 A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Available from httpwwwoftosdmil
180
librarylibrary_filesdocument_377_National20Military20Strategy201320 May2004pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
________ Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet Accessed on 8 February 2006
________ Stability Operations Joint Operating Concept September 2004 Available from httpwwwdticmiljointvisionfinalstab_jocdoc Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004)
Department of the Army and the Department of the US Air Force Field Manual 100shy20Air Force Pamphlet 3-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflicts Washington DC GPO 1990
Department of the Army Field Manual 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations Forces Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 100-5 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0520 (FM 31-20) Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 3-07 (FM 100-20) Stability Operations and Support Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 20 April 1990
________ Field Manual 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques Washington DC GPO 1971
________ Field Manual 31-20-3 Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces Washington DC GPO 1989
________ Field Manual 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 1961
________ Field Manual 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla Warfare Washington DC GPO 1951
181
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1963
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1969
________ Field Manual 90-8 Counterguerrilla Operations Washington DC GPO 1986
________ The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower-Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section I Army Strategic Planning Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section II Army Planning Priorities Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
Department of the Navy Small Wars Draft January 2004 Available from httpwww smallwarsquanticousmcmilSWMSmall20Wars20Draft20Web202pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005
Devotie Michael W Sergeant First Class ldquoUnconventional Warfare A Viable Option for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1997) 30-32
Diamond Larry ldquoWhat Went Wrong in Iraqrdquo Foreign Affairs 83 no 5 (September October 2004) 34-56
Dickson Keith D Dr ldquoThe New Asymmetry Unconventional Warfare and Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Fall 2001) 14-19
Dobbins James ldquoAfghanistanrsquos Faltering Reconstructionrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2002 Available from httprandorgcommentary091202NYThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoNation-building The Inescapable Responsibility of the Worldrsquos Only Superpowerrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2003 Available from httprandorg publicationsrandreviewissuessummer2003nation1html Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoSecuring the Peace Will Require Finesserdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary062704CRhtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
182
Dobbins James John G McGinn Keith Crane Seth G Jones Rollie Lal Andrew Rathmell Rachel Swagner and Anga Timilsina Americarsquos Role in Nation-Building From Germany to Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND 2003
Donahoe Patrick J Lt Col ldquoPreparing Leaders for Nationbuildingrdquo Military Review (May-June 2004) 24-26
Fastabend David Brigadier General ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo PowerPoint presentation slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquoprepared for Joint Forces Command TRADOC 2004
Federal News Service ldquoBriefing on Coalition Post-war Reconstruction and Stabilization Effortsrdquo (transcript) Washington DC Federal News Service Inc 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmiltranscripts2003tr20030612shy0269html Internet Accessed on 4 October 2004
Field Kimberly C and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Fischer Joseph R ldquoCut from a Different Cloth The Origins of US Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (April 1995) 29-39
Fishel John T ldquoLittle Wars Small Wars LIC OOTW The GAP and Things That Go Bump in the Nightrdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 372-398
Flavin William ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 95-112 Available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Flournoy Michegravele Interagency Strategy and Planning for Post-Conflict Reconstruction Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) March 2002 Available from httpwwwcsis orgisppcrstrategypdf Internet Accessed on 10 October 2004
Foot M R D The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984
Franks Tommy General with Malcolm McConnell American Soldier General Tommy Franks Commander in Chief United States Central Command New York Harper-Collins Publishers Inc 2004
Frizzell Art ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgoverview html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Galula David Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005
183
Garamone Jim ldquoUS Army Trains Free Iraqi Forces in Hungaryrdquo American Forces Press Service 23 February 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnews Feb2003 n022420003_200302243html Internet Accessed on 24 September 2004
Gilmore Gerry J ldquoDespite Challenges Iraqi Forces lsquoIn the Fightrsquordquo DefenseLINK News 29 September 2004 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnewsSep 2004n09292004_2004092910html Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo Available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 Available from httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraray congress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2005
Godson Roy Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004
Grau Lester W Lt Col (ret) ldquoSomething Old Something New Guerrillas Terrorists and Intelligence Analysisrdquo Military Review (July-August 2004) 42-49
________ Multiple conversations on topic with the author September 2003 to October 2004 Fort Bragg NC
________ ldquoFOB 103 Operations in Northern Iraqrdquo Slide presentation Fort Bragg NC 28 August 2003
________ (Now Lieutenant Colonel) Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Grossman Elaine M ldquoAdvisers to Rumsfeld DOD Canrsquot Sustain Current Stability Operationsrdquo Inside The Pentagon Inside Washington Publishers 23 September 2004 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetgrossman advisers_to_rumsfeldhtm Internet Accessed on 9 October 2004
Halstead Brian D CW2 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Questions Concerns and Proposalsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 29-31
Hamblet John ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg chinahtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
184
Harclerode Peter Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden London Cassell and Company 2001
Harned Glenn M Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
Heckler Jeremy Sgt ldquoIraqis Denounce Barsquoath Party en masserdquo Iraqi Destiny 1 no 57 (January 2004) 2 5
Herd Walter Colonel ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service 13 June 2005 Available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Hoffman Bruce ldquoLessons from the Past for Iraqrsquos Futurerdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary072304SDUThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
Hoffman Bruce Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND National Security Research Division 2004
Hogan David W Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II Washington DC Department of the Army 1992
Holms Richard L ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 Available from httpwwwodci govcsistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet Accessed on 18 June 2005
Horton Lynn Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 Athens GA Ohio University 1998
Hughes Patrick M ldquoGlobal Threats and Challenges The Decades Ahead Prepared Statement before the Senate Armed Services Committeerdquo 2 February 1999 Washington DC Available from wwwdefenselinkmilspeeches1999 s19990202-hugheshtml Internet Accessed on 30 August 2003
Irvin Will Lt Col (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 New York NY PublicAffairs 2005
Ivosevic Michael J CW3 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Refining the Definitionrdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1999) 39
Jaffe Greg ldquoOn Ground in Iraq Capt Ayers Writes His Own Playbook Thrust Into New Kind of War Junior Officers Become Armyrsquos Leading Experts Risky Deal with Village Sheikrdquo Wall Street Journal 22 September 2004 1-6
Jalali Ali A ldquoRebuilding Afghanistanrsquos National Armyrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2002) 72-86
185
Joes Anthony James America and Guerrilla Warfare Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000
John F Kennedy Special Warfare Training Center Around the Campfire A Discussion The War on Terror Cody WY Government Publications January 2004
Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Washington DC GPO 2001 (as amended through 9 June 2004) Available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet Accessed on 16 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination Washington DC GPO 23 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 10 September 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Doctrine for Joint Special Operations Washington GPO 2003
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD Washington DC GPO 12 April 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism Washington DC GPO 1 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs 2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet Accessed on 6 February 2006
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategy Chapter 2 The Strategic Environment-shyOpportunities and Challenges Available from wwwdticmiljcsnmsstrategihtm Internet Accessed on 3 October 2004
Joint Special Operations Insights Issues and Lessons (SIPRNET) Norfolk VA (classified website used only for reference ndash no classified information released)
Jones D Major ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo 5 February 2005 Scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
Jones Frank L ldquoArmy SOF in Afghanistan Learning the Right Lessonsrdquo Joint Force Quarterly (Winter 2002-03) 16-22
186
Jones Gary M Colonel and Major Christopher Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 4-15
Kaplan Robert D Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground New York NY Random House 2005
Kem Jack D Dr Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd
Kershner Michael R Colonel ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84-86
________ ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 2-7
Kiper Richard L Dr ldquoAn Army For Afghanistan The 1st Battalion 3rd SF Group and the Afghan Armyrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) 42-43
Kruger Kimbra L ldquoUS Military Intervention in Third World Conflict The Need for Integration of Total War and LIC Doctrinerdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 399-428
Lambert Geoffrey C Major General ldquoMajor Combat and Restoration Operations A Discussionrdquo Special Warfare (February 2004) 2-5
________ ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20-27
Language Technology Office DCD ldquoBiometrics Automated Toolset (BAT)rdquo (Briefing Slides) US Army Battle Command Battle Lab Huachuca March 2004
Lauber Mark LTC Retired Multiple discussions with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
Leever Gretha Municipal Affairs Officer United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo Multiple conversations with the author on the UNrsquos capacity to conduct postconflict operations Kosovo November 2001 to January 2002
Lewis S J Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991
Lindsay Franklin A Basic Doctrine for the Conduct of Unconventional Warfare McKinsey and Company Inc 1961
187
Linnington Abigail T Captain Unconventional Warfare as a Strategic Foreign Policy Tool The Clinton Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan Thesis The Fletcher School (Tufts University) 2004
Lomperis Timothy J From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996
Magni Frank Sgt ldquoAfghan Army Maneuvers With Task Force Broncordquo Defend America News 13 August 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesaug2004a081304ahtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Malcom Ben S Colonel Retired and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996
Maloney Sean M ldquoAfghanistan From Here to Eternityrdquo Parameters (Spring 2004) 4shy15
Manwaring Max G and John T Fishel ldquoInsurgency and Counter-Insurgency Toward a New Analytical Approachrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 3 no 3 (Winter 1992) 272-310
Marquis Susan L Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces Washington DC The Brookings Institute 1997
Marr Phebe ldquoIraq lsquoThe Day Afterrsquo Internal Dynamics in Post-Saddam Iraqrdquo Naval War College Review I VI no 1 (Winter 2003) Available from httpwwwnewnavy milpressReview2003winterpdfsart1-w03pdf Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
Materazzi Albert ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg italyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Maurer Kevin ldquoIraqis Learn To Take Up Their Own Defenserdquo Fayetteville Online 24 February 2004 Available from httpwwwfayettevilleobservercomprinter phpStory-6193578 Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
McClintock Michael Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 2002 Available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet Accessed on 21 February 2006
McCollaum Peter Major Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
McCormick Gordon Dr US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division Presentation at the Unconventional Warfare
188
Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC
McMillan Joseph ldquoBuilding an Iraqi Defense Forcerdquo Strategic Forum no 198 (June 2003) 1-7
McRaven William H SPEC OPS Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare Theory and Practice Navato CA Presidio Press 1996
Meigs Montgomery C ldquoUnorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) 4-18
Messing Major and William Shingleton National Defense Council Foundation World Conflict List 1999 Available from wwwndeforgConflict_ListWorld99html Internet Accessed on 20 February 2004
Metzgar Major Greg E ldquoUnconventional Warfare Definitions from 1950 to the Presentrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 18-23
Miksche F O Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements London Faber and Faber Limited
Miller Dean J Tech Sgt ldquoUS Teaches Georgians Command Control Skillsrdquo Defend America News 14 July 2002 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesjun2002a061402ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Miller Russell Behind the Lines The Oral History of Special Operations in World War II New York NY New American Library 2002
Morris Niger ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946rdquo BBC History Available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwosoe_printhtml Internet Accessed on 1 December 2005
Műller Kurt E ldquoToward a Concept of Strategic Civil Affairsrdquo Parameters (Winter 1998) 80-98
Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq MNSTC-I et al Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommil Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
Naylor Sean D ldquorsquoPaying the pricersquo for pulling out Commanders see a tough fight to retake Fallujahrdquo The Army Times 4 October 2004 10
Newman Dean S Major ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo Available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
189
ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
OrsquoHanlon Michael E ldquoA Flawed Masterpiece (Afghanistan Conflict 2001-)rdquo Foreign Affairs 81 no 3 (May-June 2002) 1-7
Oakley Robert B and TX Hammes ldquoSecuring Afghanistan Entering a Make-or Break Phaserdquo Strategic Forum no 205 (March 2004) 1-6
Paddock Alfred H Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Washington DC National Defense University 1982
Paddock Jr Alfred H US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Kansas University Press 2002
Prados John Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf Chicago Elephant Paperbacks 1986
Prusher Ilene R ldquoNews outlets flood Kirkuk-and satellite dish sales soar-as Husseinrsquos era of censorship crumblesrdquo Christian Science Monitor 29 April 2003 Available from httpwww csmonitorcom20030429p06s01-woiqhtml Internet Accessed on 30 October 2004
Pullen Randy Col ldquoAfghan National Army Recruiting Extends to Northeastrdquo Defense LINK News 24 September 2004 Available from httpwww defenselinkmil newsSep2004n09242004_2004092402html Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
________ ldquoNew Afghan Soldiers Pledge to Serve a Nationrdquo Defend America News 29 July 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamericamilarticlesjul2004 a072904ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Reed James W ldquoShould Deterrence Fail War Termination in Campaign Planningrdquo Parameters (Summer 1993) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmymiluaswc parameters1993reedhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Robinson Linda Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces New York NY Public Affairs 2004
________ ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 Available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Rothstein Hy S Afghanistan and the Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006
190
Salmoni Barak A ldquoIraq Now Choosing Sovereignty or Democracyrdquo Strategic Insights 3 no 8 (August 2004)
Sandler Stanley ldquoArmy Psywarriors A History of US Army Psychological Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1992) 18-25
Sandler Stanley ldquoSeal the Victory A History of US Army Civil Affairsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 1991) 38-41
Schadlow Nadia ldquoWar and the Art of Governancerdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 85-94
Schoomaker Peter J (GEN CINC US Special Operations Command) ldquoSpecial Operations Forces The Way Aheadrdquo undated 2
Sepp Kalev I Dr ldquoThe Campaign in Transition From Conventional to Unconventional Warrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) Available from httpwwwfind articlescomp articlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442212 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
Shaw Geoffery D T ldquoPolicemen versus Soldiers the Debate Leading to MAAG Objections and Washington Rejections of the Core of the British Counter-Insurgency Advicerdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 12 no 2 (Summer 2001) 15shy78
Shultz Richard H Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999
Simpson Charles M III Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years Novato CA Presido Press 1983
Singlaub John K Major General (ret) Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century New York NY Summit Books 1991
Skinner Mike ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare As an SF mission-Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16 Available from httpwwwfind articlescomparticles mi_m0HZYis_1_15ai_89646648print Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Smith Jeffrey R ldquoKosovo Still Seethes as UN Official Nears Exitrdquo The Washington Post 18 December 2000 A20 quoted in Kimberly C Field and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo Available from httpwww specialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet Accessed on 22 January 2006
191
ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo Available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtm Internet Accessed on 2 December 2005
Steele Dennis ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article onshyline] Available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet Accessed on 14 May 2006
Szelowski David W Lt Col USMCR (ret) ldquoThe Beginning of the Next Warrdquo handlebarsorg July 2003 Available from httpwwwhandlebarsorga=article printamparticleid =204 Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
The Advisor Volume 1 Multi-national Security Transition Command 11 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep11pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 2 Multi-national Security Transition Command 18 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisorTheAdvisor Sep18pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 3 Multi-national Security Transition Command 25 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep25pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Thomas Glenn CPT (now Major) Conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
Tomes Robert R ldquoRelearning Counterinsurgency Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 2004) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0IBR is_1_34ai_115566394 Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Tovo Kenneth E Major ldquoSpecial Forces Mission Focus for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (December 1996) 2-11
Unified Combatant Command for Special Operations Forces ldquoUS Code Title 10 Section 167rdquo Available from www4lawCornelleduuscode Internet Accessed on 10 January 2004
US Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 Available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet Accessed on 6 April 2006
US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978
US Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) ldquoUnconventional Warfare 2020rdquo (Power Point Presentation) No Date
192
US Army Special Operations Command ldquoMission Area Analysis for POM FY02-07rdquo Fort Bragg NC January 1999
US Army Training and Doctrine Command The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Fort Monroe VA GPO 2003
________ TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-520 Fort Monroe VA GPO 2004
US Government The 911 Commission Report Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Washington DC GPO 2004
US Marine Corps Small Wars Manual Manhattan KS Sunflower University Press 1988
Volckmann Russell Lieutenant Colonel US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951
von Clausewitz Carl On War ed and trans by Michael Howard and Peter Paret Princeton NJ Princeton University Press 1976
Warner Michael The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000 Available from httpwww ciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet Accessed on 4 December 2005
Wendt Eric P Lieutenant Colonel (P) ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
Wilcox Greg and Gary I Wilson ldquoMilitary Response to Fourth Generation Warfare in Afghanistanrdquo d-n-inet 5 May 2002 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetfcs wilson_wilcox_miltary_responsehtm Internet Accessed on 11 August 2004
Williams Thomas J ldquoStrategic Leader Readiness and Competencies for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmy miluaswcparameters03summerwilliamshtm Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Wilson Robert Lee Captain ldquoUnconventional Warfare SFrsquos Past Present and Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 24-27
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoPrepared Statement for the House Appropriations Committee Foreign Operations Subcommitteerdquo Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilspeeches 2004 sp20040429-depsecdef0303html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
193
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoThe Road Map for a Sovereign Iraqrdquo Available from httpwww defenselinkmil speeches2004sp20040609-depsecdef0463html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Woodward Bob Plan of Attack New York Simon and Schuster 2004
Yaphe Judith S ldquoTurbulent Transition in Iraq Can It Succeedrdquo Strategic Forum no 208 (June 2004) 1-8
Yardley Michael T E Lawrence A Biography New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000
ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavianhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo Available from httpwwwossog orgyugoshymainlandhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Zoroya Gregg ldquoAfghan duty offers ultimate in unconventional warfarerdquo USA Today 12 April 2004 Available from httpglobalspecopscomultunconventional warfare html Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
194
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
Combined Arms Research Library US Army Command and General Staff College 250 Gibbon Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-2314
LTC (Retired) Joseph G D Babb Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC (Retired) Mark Lauber Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
James Corum PhD Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC Chadwick W Clark Director Combined Arms Center Special Operation Forces Education 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
John C Knie Colonel SF Director of Training and Doctrine US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School Fort Bragg NC 28310
195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
1 Certification Date 16 June 2006
2 Thesis Author Major D Jones
3 Thesis Title Ending the Debate Unconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matter
4 Thesis Committcc Mcmbcrs dwltampb Signatures ylamplzampamp
5 Distribution Statement See distribution statements A-X on reverse then circle appropriate distribution statement letter code below
O B C D E F X SEE EXPLANATION OF CODES ON REVERSE
If your thesis does not fit into any of the above categories or is classified you must coordinate with the classified section at CARL
6 Justification Justification is required for any distribution other than described in Distribution Statement A All or part of a thesis may justify distribution limitation See limitation justification statements 1-10 on reverse then list below the statement(s) that applies (apply) to your thesis and corresponding chapterssections and pages Follow sample format shown below
EXAMPLE Limitation Justification Statement 1 ChapterISection I Page(s)
Direct Military Support (10) Critical Technology (3) Administrative Operational Use (7)
Chapter 3 Section 4 Chapter 2
I I I
12 31 13-32
Fill in limitation justification for your thesis below
Limitation Justification Statement ChapterSection Pagels)
7 MMAS Thesis Authors Signature f
STATEMENT A Approved for public release distribution is unlimited (Documents with this statement may be made available or sold to the general public and foreign nationals)
STATEMENT B Distribution authorized to US Government agencies only (insert reason and date ON REVERSE OF THIS FORM) Currently used reasons for imposing this statement include the following
1 Foreign Government Information Protection of foreign information
2 Proprietary Information Protection of proprietary information not owned by the US Government
3 Critical Technology Protection and control of critical technology including technical data with potential military application
4 Test and Evaluation Protection of test and evaluation of commercial production or military hardware
5 Contractor Performance Evaluation Protection of information involving contractor performance evaluation
6 Premature Dissemination Protection of information involving systems or hardware from premature dissemination
7 AdministrativeOperational Use Protection of information restricted to official use or for administrative or operational purposes
8 Software Documentation Protection of software documentation - release only in accordance with the provisions of DoD Instruction 79302
9 Specific Authority Protection of information required by a specific authority
10 Direct Military Support To protect export-controlled technical data of such military significance that release for purposes other than direct support of DoD-approved activities may jeopardize a US military advantage
STATEMENT C Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and their contractors (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT D Distribution authorized to DoD and US DoD contractors only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT E Distribution authorized to DoD only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10
STATEMENT F Further dissemination only as directed by (controlling DoD office and date) or higher DoD authority Used when the DoD originator determines that information is subject to special dissemination limitation specified by paragraph 4-505 DoD 52001-R
STATEMENT X Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and private individuals of enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical data in accordance with DoD Directive 523025 (date) Controlling DoD office is (insert)
197
ABSTRACT
ENDING THE DEBATE UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE AND WHY WORDS MATTER by Major D Jones 207 pages
There is an ongoing debate within the Special Forces community whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are applicable in the contemporary and future Special Operations environments based on current doctrinal definitions and operational concepts For unconventional warfare the debate surrounds its current broad and confusing definition and whether it can be an overarching term for efforts against non-state actors in the Global War on Terrorism The foreign internal defense debate is not over definitions but responsibilities as the conventional military begins to play a larger role in foreign internal defense a legacy Special Forces mission This thesis argues that unconventional warfare needs a clear and concise definition such as ldquooperations by a state or non-state actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or occupying powerrdquo that unconventional warfare should not be ldquotransformedrdquo to fight global insurgency that there is an identifiable relationship between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense called the ldquotransition pointrdquo signifying the change from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense and that this relationship can be modeled that operational preparation of the environment is not unconventional warfare but an emerging operation requiring its own doctrine and that unconventional warfare foreign internal defense and operational preparation of the environment will be the dominate Special Forces missions in the Global War on Terrorism
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In the fall of 2003 I began developing ideas presented in this thesis while trying
to explain the doctrinal differences between unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense to twelve of my student officers enrolled in the third phase of the Special Forces
Officer Qualification Course It is hard to believe three years later that this project has
finally reached fruition This thesis would not have been possible without the support of
the following
First God for all the blessings He has provided me especially my awesome wife
and amazing children that have suffered the most in the last year while I worked on this
project Since we are a Special Forces family I will observe operational security and not
mention them by name but I want to thank them for their patience love and sacrifices
over the last year My wife deserves special recognition for the long hours of proofshy
reading She now knows more about UW and FID than many of my contemporaries
Bottom line is that without God and family I would not be where I am today
Second my heartfelt thanks goes to my thesis committee--Geoff Babb Dr James
Corum and Mark Lauber Thank you for your diligence patience and long hours reading
and providing comments on this lengthy thesis Without your help and expertise in this
subject area this thesis would not have been realized
Third thanks to my staff group advisor instructor team and oral comprehensive
exam committee members for their outstanding support and professionalism Tim
McKane Dr James Willbanks LTC James Beck Major David Stephan Dennis
Hanrahan and Major Cory Peterson I would also like to thank the highly dedicated
iv
CGSC special operation detachment instructors led by LTC Chadwick Clark for their
continued support and encouragement throughout the year I could not have been blessed
with a better group of instructors
Fourth I would also like to thank my Special Forces mentors whom have had the
most profound effect on my understanding of this topic--LTC Mark Grdovic LTC
Jonathan Burns Colonel Kenneth Tovo and Major General Sidney Shachnow I would
also be remiss if I did not thank all of the noncommissioned officers whom I have been
blessed to learn from since I have been in Special Forces especially my old team
members and assistant small group instructors The experiences shared with these
unconventional warriors and leaders have allowed me to put my real world experiences
into context and develop the theories presented in the thesis
Finally I would like to thank all who endured my ranting and raving on this
subject over the last three years especially other Special Forces officers former students
fellow small group instructors staff group 5B and a number of unsuspecting targets of
opportunity who received the verbal executive summary of this project whenever one of
them ventured into my range fan Each one of these opportunities to express the points of
this thesis helped me form my arguments
De Oppresso Liber
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ACRONYMS ix
ILLUSTRATIONS x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Research Questions11 Assumptions11 Limitations 11 Scope and Delimitations 12 Significance of this Study 13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE22
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine23 Introduction23 The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries25 The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors 28 Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation29 Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History31 Special Operations Executive Summary35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare36 Introduction36 Special Operation Branch 38 The Jedburghs 39 Detachment 101 40 The Operational Groups42 Office of Strategic Services Summary47
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations 49 Introduction49 The Three Disciplines 52 Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability 55
vi
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations 56 Eastern Europe 1949-195657 Korea60 Tibet 63 Cuba 64 Laos65 Vietnam67 Nicaragua 69 Afghanistan and the Soviets70 Central Intelligence Agency Summary73
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 73 Doctrinal Developments 73 The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model96
South Vietnam 100 North Vietnam 102 El Salvador104 Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan107 Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines 109 Operation Iraqi Freedom110 Summary 114
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS115
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare115 Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition 115 Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare120
Foreign Internal Defense126 Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition 126
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 128 Logical Lines of Operations129
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation 131 Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 134 Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 137
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 138 The Transition Curve Model142
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq 145 Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model149
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 151 Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency 160 Summary 161
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 163
vii
Conclusion 163 Recommendations165 Areas for Further Research 171
GLOSSARY 173
BIBLIOGRAPHY178
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 196
viii
ACRONYMS
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
COI Coordinator of Information
CORDS Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support
DET 101 Detachment 101
DOD Department of Defense
FMLN Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front
JP Joint Publication
MI6 Military Intelligence (UK)
NORSO Norwegian Special Operations
OG Operational Groups
OPATT Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams
OSS Office of Strategic Services
SO Special Operation
SOE Special Operations Executive
US United States
USASFC United States Army Special Forces Command
VCI Viet Cong Infrastructure
ix
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model 96
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines132
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation 136
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model137
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model144
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)146
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) 148
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed150
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model160
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a definition is to clarify The term or concept in question should be more understandable once its definition has been presented Generally the ideal definition should leave little or no room for ambiguity1
David Charters and Maurice Tugwell
If you spend more than 30 seconds debating what it means it isnrsquot clear enough for the users2
Clinton JAncher III
Since its birth in 1952 Special Forces have had the exclusive responsibility
within the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct unconventional warfare Joint
Publication (JP) 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms defines unconventional warfare as
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion3
1David Charters and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz (Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984) 29
2Clinton J Ancker III Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing (Fort Leavenworth KS Director of the Armyrsquos Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005)
3Department of Defense Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet accessed on 16 December 2005
1
Although not clear in this definition doctrinally and historically unconventional
warfare is ldquothe culmination of successful [military] efforts to organize and mobilize the
civil populous against a hostile government or an occupying powerrdquo4 United States (US)
Army unconventional warfare doctrine also has an addition not found in the joint
definition stating that this operation is ldquopredominantly conducted through by and with
indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo5 A comparison between the current unconventional
warfare definition and the definition from 1955 highlights how little has changed in over
fifty years
[O]perations conducted in time of war behind enemy lines by predominantly indigenous personnel responsible in varying degrees to friendly control or direction in furtherance of military and political objectives It consists of the interrelated fields of guerrilla warfare evasion and escape and subversion against hostile states6
US unconventional warfare has historically been used in one of two ways either
to support or shape the environment for the larger conventional campaign or as a
unilateral effort generally conducted covertly7 Examples of unconventional warfare
shaping for conventional military operations are well known such as the Allied support
to the resistances in France the Balkans and the Far East in World War II and most
recently in Northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom Unilateral unconventional
4Department of the Army FM 3-0520 Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 26 June 2001) 2-1
5Ibid This version of the definition is also used in FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 1-1
6Colonel (ret) Aaron Bank From OSS to Green Beret The Birth of Special Forces (New York NY Pocket Books 1986) 179
7FM 3-0520 2-3
2
warfare efforts have been much less well known mostly due to their covert nature but
include operations behind the Iron Curtain to develop resistance capabilities in
Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s and again in Afghanistan after the events of
11 September during Operation Enduring Freedom
The unilateral examples cited above have primarily been conducted by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) which also maintains a covert unconventional warfare
capability referred to as paramilitary operations or special operations8 As William
Daugherty notes that for the CIA a special operation ldquomeans paramilitary operations-shy
military-type actions utilizing non-military personnel [indigenous personnel or
surrogates]rdquo9 The CIA has generally been responsible for conducting covert
unconventional warfare as a tool of foreign policy when the president wants to have
plausible deniability especially during peacetime Covert operations are ldquoplanned and
executed to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor A covert
operation differs from a clandestine operation in that the emphasis is placed on
concealment of the operationrdquo10 In times of conflict when military forces are employed
the DOD takes the lead responsibility for unconventional warfare The CIA conducted
numerous covert paramilitary activities during the Cold War against communist regimes
and most recently shaped the environments in Afghanistan and Iraq for Special Forces to
conduct successful unconventional warfare
8William J Daugherty Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004) 15 84-85
9Ibid 15
10FM 3-0520 Glossary 7-8
3
In the early 1960rsquos President Kennedy called upon Special Forces to use its
unconventional warfare skills and knowledge developed to support an insurgency to
defeat the Cold War communist-sponsored insurgencies or wars of national revolutions
threatening to expand globally if not checked This new mission was called foreign
internal defense and was successfully prosecuted by Special Forces teams at the tactical
and operational levels of the Vietnam War JP 1-02 defines foreign internal defense as
ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action
programs taken by another government to free and protect its society from subversion
lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo11 JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes foreign internal defense into three types of
support
Indirect--focuses on building strong national infrastructure through economic and military capabilities that contribute to self sufficiencyrdquo12
Direct (not involving combat operations)--the involvement of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populous or military13
Combat--the use of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populace or military14
As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories represent significantly different levels of US
diplomatic and military commitment and riskrdquo15
11JP 1-02
12Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
13Ibid
14Ibid
4
At the same time President Kennedy tasked the CIA with the same mission but
conducted clandestinely The clandestine foreign internal defense mission would later be
known as ldquospecial activitiesrdquo16 As William Daugherty explains
The CIArsquos paramilitary cadre is most often employed in training foreign military and security forces however training that falls under the rubric of special activities but which requires the support of the Agencyrsquos covert action infrastructure--rather than actual combat operations--was by far the most common mission of the paramilitary element17
Even though the CIA mission presented here seems confusing the covert finding is the
constraining document that provides the detailed operational limitations and political
goals alleviating any confusion
By the end of Vietnam Special Forces had also conducted special reconnaissance
against the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos and Cambodia and direct action in the highly-
publicized raid on the Son Tay prison camp in an attempt to rescue American prisoners of
war which would later be added to Special Forces doctrine as personnel recovery With
the strategic military and political failure of Vietnam Special Forces tried to distance
itself from foreign internal defense which carried with it the stigma of Vietnam At the
same time Special Forces all but forgot about its unconventional warfare roots because
the likelihood of successfully conducting unconventional warfare in the nuclear age
seemed remote Instead Special Forces focused on less politically-charged missions
such as special reconnaissance and direct action which both fit nicely in the operations
plans of the Cold War
15Ibid I-4
16Daugherty 85
17Ibid 84-85
5
In the 1980s Special Forces conducted foreign internal defense to defeat an
insurgency in El Salvador and Honduras and provided support to the CIArsquos covert
unconventional warfare efforts to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras
in Nicaragua All of these operations proved successful although Special Forces had only
been utilized in a supporting role during the two unconventional warfare campaigns The
success in El Salvador began a string of successes for Special Forces conducting special
reconnaissance direct action and foreign internal defense in places such as Panama
Desert Storm Bosnia and Kosovo adding other missions such as combat search and
rescue and coalition support to its repertoire as well By 2001 few thought that
unconventional warfare would ever be conducted again and there were numerous studies
to determine the relevancy of unconventional warfare in future conflicts18 In the summer
of 2001 senior Special Forces leadership attempted to ensure continued Special Forces
viability by placing all Special Forces missions under a broad category of unconventional
warfare These included not only Special Forcesrsquo missions to date but now included
counterproliferation combating terrorism and the other collateral activities such as
humanitarian demining operations and coalition support19 However their efforts would
be disrupted by the terrorist attacks of 11 September
Less than two years later Special Forces had successfully prosecuted two
unconventional warfare campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan
using indigenous forces instead of massive conventional formations and the other a
18Colonel Michael R Kershner ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84
19FM 3-0520 2-1
6
shaping operation in northern Iraq using the indigenous Kurdish insurgents to fix thirteen
of twenty Iraqi divisions north of Baghdad lessening the burden on the conventional
combined forces land component commandrsquos southern invasion force Now in the
postconflict phase of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Special Forces should
doctrinally be conducting foreign internal defense helping the indigenous government
forces to defeat internal threats in an attempt to secure the environment and allow the
political processes to develop
To date however Special Forces have been primarily employed in unilateral
actions focused on ldquokill or capturerdquo missions This unilateral employment has all but
negated the force multiplying capability inherent in Special Forces operations through
training and advising indigenous government security forces Instead the conventional
Army has taken on the majority of the training and advising roles in both theaters
Although Special Forces touts working by with and through indigenous forces as its
core competency Special Forces found ways to remove itself from the burden of training
and advising indigenous conventional units in Iraq and Afghanistan Using the Global
War on Terrorism as a reason a similar pattern of passing missions to Marines or
contractors is evident in other foreign internal defense operations such as the Georgian
train and equip mission and the African Crisis Response Initiative now referred to as
ACOTA or African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance20
20GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 available from
7
As of the spring of 2006 the debate continues throughout the Special Forces
community as to whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
are still applicable in todayrsquos contemporary operating environment and future conflicts
Studies being conducted seem to continue to suggest that current unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine and definitions need to be ldquotransformedrdquo for a new
application against non-state actors This is a new twist on an old debate However all of
these studies seem to gloss over the fact that in Afghanistan and Iraq unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense have been the primary operations being conducted
by Special Forces
The success of these operations with regards to Special Forcesrsquo efforts is due to
the application of legacy unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
Therefore current attempts to redefine and apply these doctrinal operations in an effort to
ldquotransformrdquo them for the current operations against non-state actors such as al Qarsquoida and
its associated movements have been difficult for one simple reason--historically and
doctrinally unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are only applicable to a
single nation state not a non-state entity21 These operations were never meant for
anything other than supporting insurgencies and or defeating insurgencies within a nation
httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraraycongress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2005
21Spelling convention for al Qarsquoida used throughout thesis comes from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet accessed on 6 February 2006
8
state and thus have proven themselves to be just as applicable today as in the days of their
inception
In both Iraq and Afghanistan unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
have been operationally linked as never before At some point in time during both of
these operations combat operations shifted to stability operations and with this shift
Special Forces should have changed mission orientation from unconventional warfare to
foreign internal defense However few within the special operations community
identified this transition and continued to define Special Forces operations in both
theaters as unconventional warfare The major obstacle to understanding this linkage is
the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be high-intensity combat theaters nothing like
the low-intensity or traditional peacetime foreign internal defense missions in theaters
like Columbia Thailand or the hundreds of other countries that Special Forces conduct
foreign internal defense as part of the geographic combatant commanderrsquos theater
security cooperation plan
The last historical example of a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense was in France the Balkans and Southeast Asia at the end of World War
II when the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and British Special Operations
Executive (SOE) conducted operations to weaken the occupying Axis powers However
even these case studies are flawed because there was almost no US involvement in the
postwar stability operations in these countries after World War II Germany and France
were the only two countries that the US conducted full-scale stability security transition
and reconstruction operations but since there were no viable resistance organizations for
the OSS and the SOE to support they are of no use to this study In the countries in
9
which OSS and SOE had operated the resistance apparatus was either demobilized-shy
disarmed paid and returned to civilian status or turned over the newly re-established
governments Therefore no relationships between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense were established which led to ldquodemobilizationrdquo becoming part of the
legacy of US unconventional warfare doctrine
Current foreign internal defense doctrine was developed out of Special Forces
experience from communist wars of national liberation in Vietnam and Latin America as
well as US nation building efforts in countries like Haiti Bosnia and Kosovo Special
Forces did not conduct unconventional warfare--US sponsored insurgency--during these
operations even though its mode of operation may have been by through and with
indigenous forces
Understanding the distinction between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense will be extremely important with the adoption of pre-emption and regime
removal as doctrinal concepts The US military has to be ready for the same kinds of
operations that it has observed since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom where there are unconventional warfare efforts in pre-conflict
and conflict phases which then transition to foreign internal defense operations in the
postconflict phases and finally return to peacetime engagement In developing future
major campaign and operational plans understanding the roles of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as well as how and when these two missions are related will
be extremely important for the planner A solid doctrinal model for this relationship may
be the basis for joint and interagency coordination throughout the campaign
10
Research Questions
The primary research question this thesis will answer is if unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as currently defined are still applicable to current and future
Special Forcesrsquo operations To answer the primary question three secondary questions
must be answered what are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and
how are they related In answering the secondary question of what unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense are similar tertiary questions must be answered for
each what is the doctrinal and operational history of Special Forces and CIA with respect
to these two missions what is their application against non-state actors and global
insurgency and should they be redefined With regards to the secondary question on the
interrelation of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense the tertiary
questions are Is there an identifiable transition point between the two and can a
relationship be modeled
Assumptions
The major assumption of this research project is that the simple meanings of
words can have a significant effect on the operational employment of Special Forces and
are not just a matter of semantics Another assumption is that senior Special Forces
leaders will be willing to address the findings of this project if they are contrary to current
thoughts and frameworks
Limitations
This thesis is written as an unclassified manuscript using public information that
is available through the Combined Arms Research Library and other electronic and
11
internet databases that are generally available to the public Although the research may be
in the classified and unclassified realm only unclassified materials and references will be
used in the thesis All references will be listed in the bibliography for further research of
the reader
Case studies used in the research and presentation of this thesis will be studied
through secondary sources and will not involve visits to the battlefield or areas of
operations due to lack of dedicated funding for such study In case studies related to
Kosovo or the efforts in Northern Iraq first hand knowledge may be relied upon and
checked with other sources
Scope and Delimitations
This study will assess current unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine of the US Army Special Forces and joint doctrine This study will also address
the current missions that are being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan and compare them
to other unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense missions from history
Classified missions or units will not be discussed by name although unclassified terms
for these missions and elements may be included This may lead to confusion for some
readers that lack special operations background and therefore will be avoided as much
as possible This study will also describe joint and interagency relationships necessary for
Special Forces employment during unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
This study will not describe in detail the other core tasks of Special Forces unless they
have a direct bearing on some finding or recommendation This study will use Special
Forces throughout due to the historical significance of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense to Special Forces The Special Forces branch is the proponent for 12
unconventional warfare doctrine as well However special operations forces could be
used interchangeably where Special Forces are used to describe operations from 1990 to
today
Significance of this Study
The current trend in the Special Forces community is to use unconventional
warfare as an overarching term to describe any operation conducted by through or with
indigenous or surrogate forces even operations that are clearly not aimed at the
overthrow or removal of a hostile government or occupying power Some reasons for
using the term unconventional warfare are to ensure a niche mission for special
operations forces it is a popular term today for the civilian leadership who view
unconventional warfare as the opposite of conventional warfare fitting nicely into the
Global War on Terrorism and a broad definition would seem to un-constrain Special
Forces operations since all missions could invariably be called unconventional and gain
larger political and budgetary support The last point was evident in the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review that recommended a significant increase in special
operations forces to prosecute the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo campaign22
Based on Special Forcesrsquo contemporary experiences the continued
misunderstanding of unconventional warfare and the resulting attempts to redefine it as
an overarching term may have unforeseen and unanticipated consequences on todayrsquos
battlefield and in future campaigns For example the rules of engagement in ldquoclassicrdquo
22Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report (6 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
13
unconventional warfare aimed at overthrowing or removing a government is much less
restrictive than the rules of engagement in a foreign internal defense mission23 In the
latter mission the rules of engagement are very restrictive Thus using unconventional
warfare as an overarching term could have ramifications in places where Special Forcesrsquo
efforts are purely to train and advise a host nation to deny sanctuary to its enemies In this
case the restrictions keep US military efforts from being directly employed such as in
Colombia The rules of engagement are directly tied to the most important word when
dealing with operations that require the support of the local populations and international
opinion legitimacy
For the US to support an insurgency or to support a government fighting an
insurgency the question of legitimacy is primary According to Timothy J Lomperis ldquoan
insurgency is a political challenge to a regimersquos authority by an organized and violent
questioning of the regimersquos claims to legitimacyrdquo24 Based on this definition when the
US is conducting unconventional warfare in support of an insurgency it is also
challenging the legitimacy of the regime and may be using conventional military means
as well When the US is supporting a government using foreign internal defense then it is
supporting the claims of legitimacy of the host nation Based on the recent experiences in
Iraq and Afghanistan it is obvious that at some point when the transition from conflict to
postconflict or unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The US military
23Major Peter McCollaum Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
24Timothy J Lomperis From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam (Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996) 33
14
must constrain its use of military action to legitimize its efforts and those of the new
government Not understanding this leads to the misuse of its firepower-centric
conventional military capabilities that ultimately decrease ones legitimacy This point is
highlighted in JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal
Defense
The nature of US tactical participation in HN[Host Nation] internal conflicts requires judicious and prudent rules of engagement (ROE) and guidelines for the application of force Inappropriate destruction and violence attributed to US forces may easily reduce the legitimacy and sovereignty of the supported government In addition these incidents may be used by adversaries to fuel anti-American sentiments and assist the cause of the opposition25
This is further evidenced by the outcry over the use of ldquotorturerdquo to gather intelligence the
environment has changed and legitimacy may be more important for long-lasting support
than the short-term gains of torture
The purpose of this thesis is to clarify the doctrine and attempt to end the nearly
fifty-five year old debate determine the relationship of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense and determine what the application of these two missions will be
in the Global War on Terrorism In this ldquolong warrdquo as Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld calls it understanding exactly what kind of operation is being undertaken and
the environment will be critical for maintaining legitimacy of US efforts and those of
friendly insurgencies and governments to maintain local regional and international
support for the Global War on Terrorism
25JP 3-071 I-14
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are numerous sources available on both the topics of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense These sources include books professional civilian
journal articles military doctrinal manuals and military journals specifically Special
Warfare magazine produced by the United States John F Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School The use of unconventional warfare in these publications runs the
gambit from describing support to insurgency to the use of special operations forces
conducting unilateral operations In some cases counterinsurgency is also described as a
component of unconventional warfare The literature review shows that there is obviously
a lot of confusion on terms and definitions related to unconventional warfare
The most current information on unconventional warfare and Special Forces
operations can be found in three different manuals The first is US Army Field Manual
(FM) 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations (1999) the second is Change 1 FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations (2004) and third FM 3-05201 Special Forces
Unconventional Warfare Operations (2003) All three manuals use the unconventional
warfare definition found in the 2001 Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Currently the final draft of the newest FM
3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare is being reviewed Due to its final
draft status and classification none of the newest changes will be directly addressed in
this thesis There is currently no joint doctrine for unconventional warfare
16
Some of the useful historical unconventional warfare related documents are the
FM 31-20 series of manuals (1961 and 1965) These manuals are the last ldquountaintedrdquo
versions prior to the lessons and doctrine from Special Forces involvement in Vietnam
being incorporated into doctrine The Special Forces manuals after 1965 increasingly
show the effects of mission creep and a graying of unconventional warfare and
counterinsurgency It was out of this confusion that todayrsquos broad unconventional warfare
definition arose
In the summer of 2001 the United States Army Special Forces Command
(USASFC) completed a study called Unconventional Warfare 2020 The aim of the study
was to define Special Forcesrsquo future concepts and ensure relevancy for the force as the
Army was concurrently conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates as part of
Joint Vision 2020 now referred to as ldquotransformationrdquo Colonel Michael Kershner
former Deputy Commander of USASFC summarized the findings of this study in a
series of articles such as the one that appeared in the Winter 2001 edition of Special
Warfare titled ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military
Operationsrdquo However the events of 11 September would put these efforts on hold In
2003 the newest version of next FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare
Operations was published This version should have captured the findings from the
Unconventional Warfare 2020 study but in fact they had been lost To date they have not
been addressed with the focus now turned towards the application of unconventional
warfare against non-state actors
Foreign internal defense references are even more plentiful and the term more
commonly understood The volume of work on this subject is due to the renewed interest
17
in the subject based on the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the
publication of the DOD Directive 300005 titled Military Support for Stability Security
Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) However there are few works that address
foreign internal defense in a high-intensity environment Others only describe foreign
internal defense as training missions in support of host nation governments
There are two excellent foreign internal defense manuals FM 21-20-3 Foreign
Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces published in
1994 and the Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense which was updated in early 2004 These manuals are the
clearest and most concise documents dealing with foreign internal defense This is most
likely due to the fact that foreign internal defense doctrine is much more black and white
than unconventional warfare doctrine An extremely detailed historical study of the
development of US counterinsurgency doctrine leading up to the formal foreign internal
defense doctrine can be found in Larry Cablersquos book Conflict of Myths The Development
of American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War published in 1986
There are no sources that address any type of transition between the
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense There are however some
references to the transition or termination point between conflict and postconflict
operations of conventional forces that may be applicable to defining the unconventional
warfare to foreign internal defense transition The most significant problem with these
studies is that they were written prior to 11 September and focus on the termination of
combat operations versus the termination of hostilities or the return to peacetime
engagement
18
Special Warfare magazine also provides a sense of past and current trends of
understanding of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense from the
perspective of Special Forces concept and doctrinal development The large body of
articles in Special Warfare highlights the confusion surrounding unconventional warfare
The most recent example of senior Special Forces leader misunderstanding
unconventional warfare is found in the May 2004 Special Warfare in which now retired
Major General Geoffrey C Lambert former commanding general of the Special Warfare
Center and School explains that ldquoSpecial Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare
which includes counterinsurgency [authorsrsquo emphasis] and guerrilla warfarerdquo
A more recent issue April 2005 had an article titled ldquoOperation White Star A
UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo by Major Dean S Newman in which he
describes the use of unconventional warfare to fight insurgencies and terrorism His
premise is based on his historical analysis of the White Star program a clandestine CIA
special activity program to support indigenous Laotian Hmong tribesmen to disrupt North
Vietnamese Ho Chi Minh Trail and sanctuary areas inside of Laos While commonly
referred to as an unconventional warfare program by many historians and authors White
Star was actually a clandestine foreign internal defense operation using an indigenous
element to fight an insurgency when the host nation government did not want to get
involved The article is fraught with contradictions and misuse of terms and ideas Had
Major Newman approached this topic from the point of view that the North Vietnamese
were ldquooccupyingrdquo these Laotian sanctuary areas and that the Laotian government was
unable to regain control he may have been able to substantiate his argument that White
19
Star was an unconventional warfare operation However his argument that
unconventional warfare can be used against an insurgency is still an oxymoron
One of the best sources on the future of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense is Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-3-520
Military Operations Future Force Concepts for Army Special Operations Forces dated
14 January 2004 This pamphlet provides the conceptual foundation for the
transformation current Special Forces operations into what is referred to as full spectrum
Special Forces operations In the full spectrum Special Forces operations concept
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are two of the three major mission
sets This is a departure from the Unconventional Warfare 2020 findings since it once
talks specifically of two separate missions unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense This publication was not published by the doctrine branches of the Special
Warfare Center and School which may account for its significant departure from the
mainstream of Special Forces doctrine published by the Special Warfare Center
Historical references for unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are
mostly detailed studies of the history of Special Forces An example of this is Thomas
Adamsrsquo US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional
Warfare Susan Marquisrsquo Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations
Forces and most recently Hy Rothsteinrsquos Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of
Unconventional Warfare published in 2006 The best book for understanding the original
intent of unconventional warfare is found in Colonel Aaron Bankrsquos autobiography From
OSS to Green Berets Bank who recently died at the age of 101 was known as the
ldquofather of Special Forcesrdquo His book describes in detail how he worked on developing the
20
Special Forces in the early 1950s This is one of the few primary sources from one of the
original authors of Special Forces doctrine With respect to foreign internal defense
primary sources Charles Simpson provides an excellent account of the first thirty years
of Special Forces in his book Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years
There have also been numerous Command and General Staff College Master of
Military Art and Science and School of Advanced Military Studies thesis papers on both
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and their application across the
spectrum of operations One School of Advanced Military Studiesrsquo thesis by Major Duke
C Shienle provides some insight on the use of indigenous forces developed for
unconventional warfare in the postconflict phase and uses ldquounconventional operationsrdquo to
highlight the overarching use of indigenous forces in both missions He also suggests
renaming the final phase of unconventional warfare from demobilization to postconflict
to highlight the use of indigenous forces in both environments
Review of the literature indicates there are no definitive studies that answer the
questions proposed here Indeed most of the literature on these topics have not provided
suitable definitions of unconventional warfare and continue to demonstrate a lack of
common understanding or agreement as to what unconventional warfare is With respect
to foreign internal defense numerous articles have been written on this subject but none
have presented options for the employment of Special Forces found in this thesis and no
articles have been written on trying to redefine foreign internal defense Finally no
articles have been written that have tried to explain the relationship between
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
21
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE
The purpose of this research is to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense as traditionally defined are still applicable to Special Forces operations
in the contemporary and future operating environments This chapter will begin to answer
the tertiary research question ldquoWhat is the doctrinal and operational history of the
Special Forces and the CIA with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defenserdquo This will be accomplished using three research methods doctrinal
development comparison historical comparison and case studies
The doctrinal development and historical comparisons will be intertwined due to
the nature of this subject in which doctrine and historical developments happened
concurrently This study will chronicle the doctrinal development of US unconventional
warfare from the British development of this concept prior to World War II to todayrsquos
operations The comparison will be made in relation to the SOE the OSS the CIA and
finally the US Army Special Forces This construct was chosen because it allowed the
chronological development of unconventional warfare doctrine and practice from the
original concepts developed by the forefathers of the British SOE to the establishment of
the American OSS and the growing and employment pains of unconventional warfare in
World War II
The study will then focus on the sometimes rough transition from the OSS to the
CIA and the history of the agencyrsquos use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense up to the events of 11 September As for the Special Forces the study will
22
analyze the history of Special Forces and with respect to unconventional warfare and
later foreign internal defense from the initial concepts for a military unconventional
warfare capability in the early 1950 to the present
Each historical analysis will be summarized with respect to the type of operation-shy
unconventional warfare or foreign internal defense the signature of the operation--overt
to covert the operational relationship--decisive or shaping and finally the operations
approach--indirect direct and combat--the same support pattern from foreign internal
defense doctrine Lastly in the unconventional warfare cases an analysis will also be
made as to the mode of transition of the resistance forces whether they were
demobilized turned over to the government immediately or if US efforts or ties to the
organization were stopped with no transitory event
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
Introduction
World War I witnessed the first modern use of unconventional warfare as an
economy of force operation by both the British and Germans in peripheral campaigns
outside of continental Europe In essence unconventional warfare is the support to an
indigenous insurgent or resistance group aimed at overthrowing a constituted government
or an occupying power respectively Unconventional warfare can be used to support to
resistance elements also known as partisans resisting an occupier as an economy of
force during major operations by forcing the commitment of enemy conventional forces
to guarding rear areas instead of being employed on the front lines
The primary benefit of unconventional warfare is the disproportionate resources
that a government or an occupier is forced to commit against a relatively weak opponent 23
The insurgent if employed correctly maintains the initiative by deciding the time and
place of its attacks In other words they never conduct an operation unless success is
likely or outweighs the risk to the insurgent movement For the hostile government or
occupier large amounts of resources including personnel money and equipment are
necessary to secure lines of communication key facilities and capabilities and key
terrain When in support of a conventional military effort these enemy resources are kept
from being deployed to main conventional battle areas By World War II unconventional
warfare had become a great threat to modern armies because of their ldquoabsolute
dependence on industrial and economic bases in their rear and on lines of
transportationrdquo26
During World War I unconventional warfare was used by both the British and the
Germans The young British Captain (later Colonel) T E Lawrence an advisor to Sherif
Feisal the future King of Iraq used the Arab Army to help the British defeat the Turks27
In East Africa the German Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck commanded a
guerrilla army of 14000 which successfully tied down the efforts of 160000 British
Portuguese and Belgian troops28 Both of these efforts were successful not due to the
tactical outcome of their efforts to support partisan forces but at the operational and
strategic level by diverting enemy forces from other fronts Both of these efforts proved
26F O Miksche Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements (London Faber and Faber Limited) 35
27Michael Yardley T E Lawrence A Biography (New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000) 83-84
28Robert B Asprey War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History (New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994) 174
24
the concept of supporting indigenous resistance elements but given the scale and
devastation of World War I especially on the Western Front the British failed to initially
assimilate these lessons into their doctrine assuming that the next great power war would
not occur for at least ten years29
During the interwar years unconventional warfare was virtually forgotten until
the rise of Adolph Hitler energized the study of unconventional warfare by the British
These studies began in 1938 when Adolph Hitler annexed Austria and the British began
to look seriously at the possibility of another war against Germany The British War
Office driven by the impending German threat to Europe tasked individuals each with
varying degrees of experience in irregular warfare to study irregular capabilities and
operations as well as to develop operational concepts for the employment of such forces
To their credit they produced extraordinary results considering the complexity of these
types of operations As a result of these studies the British developed the SOE in midshy
1940
The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries
One of the first individuals to be tasked with the detailed study of unconventional
warfare concepts was Major Lawrence Grand assigned under Admiral ldquoQuexrdquo Sinclair
the head of the British Secret or Special Intelligence Service to look at ldquothe theory of
secret offensives how could enemies be attacked otherwise than by the usual military
meansrdquo30 Simultaneously other officers were given similar tasks and as happens with
29M R D Foot The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 (London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984) 9
30Ibid 10-11 25
projects surrounded in secrecy none of them knew of the parallel efforts From this
emerged another unconventional warfare visionary Lieutenant Colonel J C F Holland
who became interested in ldquoirregular warfarerdquo based on his experiences in Ireland and his
first-hand knowledge of the T E Lawrencersquos operations against the Turks As M R D
Foot describes Hollandrsquos studies
[He] collected reports on Boer tactics in the South African war on Lawrence and his partners on guerilla activities in the Russian civil war the Spanish Civil War the struggle between China and Japan the smouldering [sic] Arab-Jewish conflicts in Palestine and of course on Ireland31
Holland became an advocate of irregular warfare which at the time included guerrilla
warfare and psychological operations and had sufficient backing by the deputy director
of British Intelligence that his ideas would become the foundation of the yet-to-beshy
formed SOE
Another visionary that would tie all of these studies together was Sir Colin
Gubbins Described by S J Lewis as ldquoone of the most important personalities of the
SOErdquo Gubbins would later rise to distinction as the commander of the SOE32 Gubbins
wrote two field manuals or pamphlets The Art of Guerrilla Warfare and Partisan
Leadersrsquo Handbook both of which would become the core training documents for future
SOE operatives33
The final visionary and a man with sufficient knowledge and political influence to
provide the strategic vision for an organization such as the SOE was Dr Hugh Dalton
31Ibid 11-12
32S J Lewis Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 (Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991) 3
33Ibid
26
who was the Minister of Economic Warfare in 1940 After a meeting in mid-July of
1940 aimed at trying to decide who would head an organization for conducting irregular
warfare Dalton wrote a letter that laid out the intent of such an organization and a basic
strategy for its employment As Dalton explained ldquoWe have got to organize movements
in enemy-occupied territory comparable to the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland [and] to
the Chinese Guerillas now operating against Japanrdquo34 He described this organization
as a ldquodemocratic internationalrdquo and suggested that it ldquomust use many different methods
including industrial and military sabotage labour agitation and strikes continuous
propaganda terrorist acts against traitors and German leaders boycotts and riotsrdquo35 He
suggested that there needed to be ldquoa new organization to co-ordinate inspire control and
assist the nationals of oppressed countries who must themselves be the direct participants
We need absolute secrecy a certain fanatical enthusiasm willingness to work with
people of different nationalities [and] complete political reliabilityrdquo36 Dalton would
become SOErsquos first chairman responsible to the chief of staff of the War Cabinet who
would provide him with the strategic intent for SOE operations He was ordered by
Churchill to ldquoset Europe ablazerdquo37
While there were others that were involved in the development of the SOE these
four visionaries stand out as the most important to the overall development of British
unconventional warfare capabilities leading up to the establishment of the SOE
34Foot 19
35Ibid
36Ibid
37Ibid 30
27
The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors
The SOErsquos most powerful weapon and what set SOE apart from MI6--the British
intelligence service whose primary mission was espionage was SOErsquos ability to organize
armed indigenous populations in occupied territories to resist their occupiers SOE
operatives were simply the facilitators to make the resistance organizations a viable threat
to the occupying forces With the advent of man-portable long-range communications
and aerial delivery systems these populations were now within reach and could be
supported by bringing material by air as well as synchronized into the larger theater
campaign What made this such a worthwhile venture was the large number of potential
recruits thanks to the interests and actions of the German occupiers As F O Miksche
explains ldquoPrecisely as in the First World War the German war aims were too vague
and indefinite to offer any attractions to the people of Europe the Germans in both
world conflicts were psychologically incapable of gaining the sympathy of the masses38
These operations would force the Germans and their allies to expend exponentially
increasing numbers of troops the farther they advanced from Germany As Miksche
notes ldquoHitlerrsquos armoured legions which were able to first surround the enemy forces
were themselves ultimately surrounded by wholly hostile populationsrdquo39 It would be
these populations that the SOE would organize train and advise
38Miksche 45
39Ibid 73
28
Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation
The conceptual applications of unconventional warfare by the British and their
actual operational successes were a testament to the capabilities of the resistance The
British SOE was originally based on small teams that would be able to organize
resistance cells and intelligence networks These SOE operatives would infiltrate into a
denied area by air boat or rat-line--a clandestine means of moving personnel overland
by different techniques They would then linkup with the indigenous resistance force and
develop the force for further operations and intelligence collection The organization for
an average network or circuit included an organizer a courier who was often a woman a
wireless operator and a sabotage instructor Once on the ground the organizers and
wireless operators if not one in the same minimized contact as much as possible because
the wireless ldquowas always the circuitrsquos weakest pointrdquo40
Initially the SOE established small clandestine cellular networks in German-
occupied territory called ldquoreseauxrdquo41 In such an environment the first step in establishing
a network was for a single agent to parachute in to pave the way for the network leader
who would follow a number of days later The initial agent was responsible for
establishing or making contact with intelligence and support networks The network
leader would then parachute in and continue to expand the network He would receive
further augmentation over time depending on his requests The network leader could also
40Foot 106
41Sir Robin Brook ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed (Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992) 69
29
request low-density specialties if necessary This was the case when Francis Suttill head
of the Prosper network in Paris requested an operator skilled at identifying and
establishing air landing zones Three months after the establishment of the Prosper
network Henri Dericourt a former French pilot arrived and was able to organize landing
areas that would receive over sixty-seven agents42
The SOE was also capable of supporting and organizing larger resistance
organizations especially in countries such as Yugoslavia where the resistance had
liberated areas in which the resistance armies could grow relatively unhindered by Axis
counterinsurgency operations This was also possible in France but security concerns
lengthened the time for these networks to grow into substantial numbers The French
Jockey network led by Francis Cammaerts developed into a large network carefully over
time Cammaerts accomplished this by establishing a true self-healing cellular network of
independent but linked groups that kept the network safe even if one of the independent
cells was disrupted This network grew to an amazing army of 10000 resistance
members that encompassed areas from Lyons to the Mediterranean coast to the Italian
and Swiss Frontiers43 In support of Normandy SOE and the US OSS formed the
Jedburghs which operated ldquounder secrecy but more exposed and apt to be in uniform
[which] was more appropriate for close cooperation with invading Allied troopsrdquo44
42ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtmInternet accessed on 2 December 2005
43Ibid
44Brook 69
30
Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History
The SOE traces its lineage directly to the British Secret Intelligence Service
better known as MI6 After MI6rsquos embarrassing loss of its intelligence networks in most
of occupied Europe to German penetration it would take Daltonrsquos SOE to reestablish
intelligence and operational networks that would support Allied operations throughout
the war A short time before the German invasion and occupation of France the chiefs of
staff of the British War Cabinet identified one British strategic objective as ldquothe creation
of widespread revolt in Germanyrsquos conquered territoriesrdquo45 To this end they realized
that an organization would have to be established to meet this goal Lord Neville
Chamberlain whom had resigned as the British Prime Minister after mishandling Hitler
at Munich was still a powerful influence as a member of the War Cabinet and signed the
founding charter of SOE on 19 July 1940 This charter established by name the SOE and
its role ldquoto co-ordinate [sic] all action by way of subversion and sabotage against the
enemy overseasrdquo46
The SOErsquos original capabilities came from the MI6 Section D EH and MI R
Section D which stood for destruction had been MI6rsquos sabotage section47 The Electra
House or EH as it was known was the site of Sir Campbell Stuartrsquos Department a
subsection of the Foreign Office of MI648 MI R stood for Military Intelligence
45Foot 18
46Ibid 20-21
47Ibid 22
48Ibid 253
31
Research49 Originally SOE was subdivided into three special operations branches SO1
SO2 and SO3 SO1 was the propaganda section but in August 1941 it was taken away
from SOE after numerous arguments and turned into its own department the Political
Warfare Executive SO2 was the active operations department while SO3 was for
planning50 There were also compartmentalized sections for each occupied country and a
liaison relationship existed with the governments in exile or representatives of
independent resistance organizations
The rivalry between the MI6 and SOE would continue throughout the war for one
simple reason as Roy Godson explains
There are invariably tensions between the [clandestine collectors and covert action officers] Clandestine collectors frequently work with sources who have political goals the same kinds of people who would also be targeted by covert action officers Covert action officersrsquo connections meanwhile are almost by definition good for the collector51
Nigel Morris describes MI6rsquos reservations about the SOE ldquo[The] Head of SIS [Secret
Intelligence Service] Sir Stewart Menzies stated repeatedly that SOE were lsquoamateur
dangerous and bogusrsquo and took it upon himself to bring massive internal pressure to bear
on the fledgling organizationrdquo52 The other ldquosecret rivalsrdquo as Foot calls them included not
only the propaganda branches but with the Admiralty over SOE maritime operations the
49Ibid 254
50Ibid 22
51Roy Godson Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence (New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004) 34-35
52Niger Morris ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940shy1946rdquo BBC History available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwo soe_printhtml Internet accessed on 1 December 2005
32
Air Ministry over air clearance and with the Royal Air Force over who was more
effective53 Morris also noted that ldquoBomber Command also despised SOE and resented
having to loan aircraft for lsquounethicalrsquo clandestine missions They wanted to win the war
by bombing Germany to its kneesrdquo54
Some of the more famous and unclassified operations that the SOE conducted
include the sabotage of the Pessac power station in France the assassination of Reinhard
Heydrich in Czechoslovakia the destruction of the Gorgopotamos rail bridge in Greece
and the destruction of the German heavy-water plant in Norway The destruction of the
Pessac power plant disrupted German U-boat operations at the port in Bordeaux The
assassination of Heydrich was carried out to counter his new posting and strong arm
counterinsurgent tactics which included round-up executions The Gorgopotamos rail
bridge linked a secondary supply route for the German effort in North Africa Finally
destruction of the heavy-water plant and associated barges crippled the Germanrsquos atomic
weapons program in 194355 The most notable resistance operations took place in support
of the D-Day landings by disrupting German reserves logistics and by providing
intelligence and guides to advancing Allied forces As Foot highlights ldquoAll told about
10000 tons of warlike stores were put into France by SOE 4000 of them before and
6000 after the landing in Normandy arms for about half a million men and a fair amount
of explosivesrdquo56
53Foot 26-27
54Morris
55Ibid
56Foot 222-3 33
The British employed about 5000 SOE operators during the war the largest
contingent going to France and Yugoslavia followed by Greece Italy Belgium Poland
Albania Abyssinia Burma Malaya Scandinavia Switzerland Hungary Romania Siam
the Dutch East Indies and lesser operations in Turkey and China57 Resistance forces
supported by the SOE while not decisive shaped the battle space by tying up numerous
Axis divisions in each country In 1942 the exiled governments of the Czechs Dutch
French Norwegians and Poles suggested to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff that
there should be a single headquarters to direct irregular operations in occupied Europe
As Foot notes ldquo[they] were each astonished to receive his reply that such a body had
already existed for almost two years [which] lsquoleft the Allied commanders breathless
SOE was so secret that its name and existence had never been disclosed to themrdquo58 The
most extreme example of these combined operations was in Poland at the maximum
reach of SOErsquos air branch Polish resistance received 485 successful drops during the
war three hundred SOE operatives and twenty-eight couriers all but five which were
Polish and 600 tons of war material59
In January of 1944 SOE and the US OSS which was modeled after the SOE in
1942 merged headquarters for the invasion called the Special Forces Headquarters In
1946 the SOE rivalry with MI6 ended with many of the SOE networks to include its
world wide communications being shutdown or transferred to MI6 under Menzies Thus
ended the SOE
57Ibid 62 172-242
58Ibid 152
59Ibid 191
34
Special Operations Executive Summary
While some would argue that SOErsquos contributions were negligible in the overall
scheme of the war they are best summed up in a letter from General Dwight D
Eisenhower to Gubbins on 31 May 1945
In no previous war and in no other theatre during this war have resistance forces been so closely harnessed to the main military effort While no final assessment of the operational value of resistance action has yet been completed I consider that the disruption of enemy rail communications the harassing of German road moves and the continual and increasing strain placed on the German war economy and internal security services throughout occupied Europe by the organized forces of resistance played a very considerable part in our complete and final victory60
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
SOE operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements It was
not covert per say since it was generally known that the Allies were conducting these
operations The SOE operations were shaping operational versus decisive supporting the
Allied efforts before and after D-Day Lastly the operational approach was for the most
part combat support with each element conducting combat advising However as the
networks grew and cadres were trained by the SOE operators as in the case of the Jockey
network the individual cells conducted operations coordinated by the Special Forces
Headquarters but not directly supervised by the SOE operatives thus the approach was
more direct than combat support
60ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo
35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare
Introduction
With Americarsquos sudden entrance into World War II the US scrambled to gain a
war footing and mobilize for war One of its weakest areas was the lack of capabilities to
gather strategic intelligence This weakness was highlighted by the failures of any
coordinated intelligence effort to provide early warning of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor in December 1941 The US looked to the British for help with establishing an
intelligence capability Roy Godson points out that for ldquoall intents and purposes US
security [was] being run for [the US] at the Presidentrsquos request by the Britishrdquo61 The
British agent of influence was William Stephenson of the British Security Coordination
who had the ear to the President in much the same way the British had influenced US
commitment in World War I Stephenson would help the legendary William ldquoWild Billrdquo
Donovan organize the first American centralized intelligence organization initially called
the Coordinator of Information (COI) on 11 July 1941 which in 1942 became the
OSS62
The COI organization had three sub-branches all focused on intelligence
gathering The Radio News Branch the Research and Analysis Branch and the Visual
Present Branch Eighty to ninety percent of the intelligence gathered by the Research and
Analysis Branch came from open sources such as its Division of Special Information
Library of Congress63 When COI was transformed into the OSS organization in 1942
61Godson 23
62Ibid
63Brook 89
36
the organizational changes were significant First the organizationrsquos main operational
elements were split into two deputy directorates the Deputy Director of Strategic
Services Operations and Deputy Director of Intelligence Services The Strategic Services
Operations were further sub-divided into six subordinate elements Special Operations
Morale Operations Maritime Units Special Projects Field Experimental Unit and
Operational Group Command The Intelligence Services was sub-divided into five units
Secret Intelligence X-2 or Counterintelligence Research and Analysis Foreign
Nationalities and Censorship and Documents
As Lawrence McDonald noted ldquoGeneral Donovan believed that the principal
contribution of OSS would be strategic intelligence which is the basis for the formation
of national policyrdquo64 It would reason then that the primary effort for collection and
analysis would fall upon the offices of the Director of Intelligence however McDonald
explains that ldquoSome of the most valuable information contributed by the OSS was
the tactical or field intelligence often provided by the Special Operations Branch (SO)
teams working behind enemy lines with resistance groupsrdquo65
Before the COI initially lacked any organization or doctrine for conducting
clandestine and covert operations it would learn from and copy a great deal of the
infrastructure already established by the British SOE and MI6 This relationship benefited
both countries For the US the benefits included intelligence training and the vast
experience base that the British had in place with MI6 and then with the SOE For the
British the US brought money and resources that the British were able to benefit from
64McDonald 93
65Ibid
37
due to its close relationship The British at first were protective of their operations and
agents in occupied Europe fearful that the Americarsquos inexperience could harm their
current operations Over time these relationships strengthened although there were still
some problems depending on political constraints or desires that one country had over the
other
Special Operation Branch
Lawrence McDonald provides an excellent description of the Special Operation
(SO) Branch ldquoThe foremost concern of SO teams and missions was liaison with the
resistance providing weapons and supplies to the indigenous underground forces
training them and planning and coordinating their sabotage with Allied operationsrdquo66
The SO was also responsible for some collateral activities including gathering
operational and strategic targeting information and for recovering downed Allied
aircrews67 SO took place in Europe and Asia with operational patterns and methods for
supporting resistance movements much like the SOE As Michael Warner highlights
ldquoThis emphasis on guerrilla warfare and sabotage fit with William Donovanrsquos vision of
an offensive in depth in which saboteurs guerrillas commandos and agents behind
enemy lines would support the armyrsquos advancerdquo68
66Ibid
67Ibid
68Michael Warner The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000) available from httpwwwciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet accessed on 4 December 2005
38
It was this common ground between the British SOE and US SO that allowed the
first bonds to be strengthened The Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff decided
that the SOE and SO would operate together an idea from which were born the
Jedburghs
The Jedburghs
The Jedburghs dropped into Belgium Holland and France on or after the
Normandy invasion to support the Allied efforts as they moved inland The Jedburghs or
Jeds were specially-trained three-man teams composed of different nationalities to assist
local resistance forces during the final weeks of German occupation Of the three men on
team one was an enlisted radio operator with the other two being officers One of the
officers was native to the country the team deployed to while the other officer was either
British SOE or American OSS The Jeds primary task was to disrupt ldquoGerman
reinforcements to the Normandy beachhead or the Allied landings in southern
Francerdquo69 They also provided valuable tactical intelligence and were able to provide
guides and security for advancing Allied units The efforts of the Jedburghs and their
resistance counterparts may have kept eight German divisions from reaching the
beachheads70
The after-action review of the Jeds highlight the growing pains in the evolution of
the integration of SO and SOE supported resistance groups within the overall
conventional campaign plan A common problem was the need to be infiltrated into the
69Lt Col Will Irvin (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 (New York NY PublicAffairs 2005) 236
70Ibid
39
operational area weeks or months early to capitalize on the full potential of resistance
groups Infiltrating on or after D-Day did not allow the Jeds enough time to train their
counterparts or develop intelligence networks Because of this they were not able operate
at their optimum capability The flow of information was lacking and timeliness of
reports affected ground operations Senior conventional commanders were unaware of
the capabilities of the Jedburghs and their resistance groups for providing accurate
intelligence guides and interpreters These operations generated so much information
that ldquothe SFHQ [Special Forces Headquarters] message centers were receiving so much
traffic that it became impossible to analyze act upon and disseminate informationrdquo71
Despite these difficulties the Jedburgh concept was as Lewis point out ldquoahead of its
time One of the more important successes for the Jedburgh operations was the
psychological impact the teams had on the citizens of occupied France [as] harbinger
of liberation and a call to actionrdquo72 With the end of the European theater the OSS was
redeployed to the Pacific and continued their exploits
Detachment 101
The most famous OSS detachment of the Burma campaign was Detachment 101
or DET 101 The Burma campaign centered around lines of communications such as the
Ledo-Burma Road which had to be secured in order to allow the Allies to reestablish
contact with the Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek The mission was to gain
control of the Ledo-Burma Road from Japanrsquos 15th Army and was as noted by Warner
71Lewis 62
72Ibid 65-66
40
ldquothe closest to realizing General Donovanrsquos original vision of lsquostrategicrsquo support to
regular combat operationsrdquo73
Donovan had been trying to establish an OSS presence in the China-Burma-India
theater and proposed a plan for using agents to sabotage Japanese rear areas Donovan
took advantage of General Stillwellrsquos lack of ldquonordquo as an opportunity to get operations
going before Stilwell could stop the mission The mission was given to a Captain who
had served under Stillwell After standing up DET 101 rushing through training of
which little was applicable to the Far East DET 101 arrived in theater only to find
Stillwell waffling on DET 101rsquos employment Stilwell did not have the resources to drive
the Japanese from the area around the north Burmese city of Myitkyina which was
hampering air operations and the completion of an alternate route Stilwell gave DET 101
the mission
After some difficulty getting into the area of operation DET 101 infiltrated and
began to transition from sabotage to guerrilla warfare but more importantly were able to
develop an extensive intelligence network that provided Stillwell with valuable
intelligence74 With less the 120 Americans at any one time DET 101 had recruited over
11000 native Kachins75 By the end of DET 101rsquos mission they rescued over 400
downed pilots and provided eighty percent of 10th Air Forcersquos targets76 In addition
73Warner
74David W Hogan Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II (Washington DC Department of the Army 1992) 99-106
75Warner
76Hogan 111
41
DET 101 had successfully developed an indigenous force that fixed two Japanese
divisions during the final Allied offensive in Burma77
The Operational Groups
Operational Groups (OGs) were developed to conduct behind-the-lines
commando operations and were composed of US Army soldiers General Donovanrsquos
concept for the OGs was based on his ldquobelief that the rich ethnic makeup of our country
would provide second generation American soldiers with language facility who could
be parachuted into enemy occupied territory to harass the enemy and encourage local
resistance organizationsrdquo78 They were designated to fight in uniform and had no
connection to the OSS thus protecting them from being shot as spies if captured79
The OGs were organized fifteen man detachments with two officers and thirteen
noncommissioned officers They were all trained in physical conditioning land
navigation night operations explosive training weapons light infantry tactics and hand
to hand fighting Two member of the OG received additional training one as a radio
operator and the other as a medic Depending on their likely area of operation the OGs
received additional training such as ski training special parachute training or maritime
training80
77John Prados Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf (Chicago IL Elephant Paperbacks 1996) 16
78Art Frizzell ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg overviewhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
79Warner
80Frizzell
42
The first operational OGs were infiltrated from Algiers into Italy to work with the
local resistance and harass the German 90th Panzer Division Other OGs were parachuted
into Italy to help recover US prisoners as well as a blind drop into Italy to give the Italian
command the details of the Armistice and cease actions against the Allies As the
Germans withdrew some resistance elements were liberated and were ready to return to
the North to harass the withdrawing Germans By mid-1945 when the Germans
surrendered there were ten OG missions totaling 120 men in northern Italy81 For up to
two weeks the OGs and their resistance elements governed their areas until Allied
military governments arrived During this time OGs had to maintain order and receive
drops of humanitarian items for the local populous82
In 1943 another OG was stood up at the request of the Greek government in exile
to assist Greek guerrillas hiding in the mountains The mission for this OG which arrived
in Greece in April of 1944 was to delay and harass 80000 German troops withdrawing
from Greece The British also participated and provided the Raider Support Regiment83
The OG operations in Yugoslavia were one part of the British-led Allied efforts in
Yugoslavia The purpose for the Allied effort in Yugoslavia was conducting as many
offensive operations as possible against German troop concentrations The operational
base for this operation was a British garrison which included British Commandos a
Raider Support Regiment some naval and air support and a number of Yugoslavian
81Albert Materazzi ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwww ossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
82Ibid
83ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
43
resistance units all together totaling several thousand84 There are three categories of OG
missions in Yugoslavia mainland operations reconnaissance patrols and island
operations The mainland operations for OSS were unsuccessful and stopped after only
two failed attempts85
The island operations began in January of 1944 and were aimed at conducting
raids to inflict casualties on German garrisons and outposts These OG raiding parties
were at time large and combined efforts with other British and partisan units For
example the first mission against Hvar Island had 33 OGs 150 British Commandos and
75 partisans while others such a linear ambush on Korcula Island in April of 1944 had a
party of only seven OGs and a few partisans The size of this operation grew especially
when aimed at relieving pressure on Tito during German offensives One extremely large
operation included the British Commandos a British Infantry battalion the Raider
Support Regiment and an undisclosed number of partisans with OG units A and B
serving as flank security and liaison between the partisans and the British artillery The
mission succeeded in drawing the Germans from along the coastal regions as well as
another German division from the interior and is regarded as successful in relieving some
pressure from Titorsquos partisans86
84ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavian html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
85ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo available from httpwwwossog orgyugo-mainlandhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
86ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
44
The French OG group was originally composed of 200 volunteers The French
OGs were ready to deploy at the completion of their training in the fall of 1943 but they
were delayed because military leaders in conventional commands were reluctant to
deploy OGs for lack of understanding of their employment In an attempt to remedy this
misunderstanding the French OGs participated in field training exercises with airborne
units from Fort Bragg North Carolina in December of 1943 The French OGs were still
in limbo conducting environmental training in Virginia and Colorado when they
received orders attaching the groups to the Seventh Army in Algiers They arrived in
Algiers and were forced to wait once again until finally being assigned missions in
support of the Normandy invasion
There were two operational groups deployed into France the French OG and the
Norwegian OG The French OG flew from England nearly a month after the invasion
parachuted into France and operated north of Lyons The Norwegian OG flew from
Algiers and operated in southern France south of Lyons The total number of teams
deployed to France was twenty all with the missions to cut enemy lines of
communications attack vital enemy installations organize train and boost the morale
and efforts of local resistance elements and to gather intelligence for the advancing
Allied Armies
The Norwegian OG which was stationed and trained at Camp Hale Colorado
was made up of 100 officers and noncommissioned officers In December 1943 the
Norwegian OG was moved to England and was assigned to the OSS SO Headquarters
subordinate to the Scandinavian Section As was previously stated the Norwegian OGs
deployed to France and upon the liberation of France the Norwegian OG was reduced in
45
size As the Norwegian OG was being drawn down Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces
became concerned with 150000 German troops that were in northern Norway that
intelligence estimated would be moved south to defend Germany SHAEF wanted to
ensure that the Germans were forced to take sea routes so the OGrsquos mission would be to
disrupt the rail lines The commanding officer for the operation split the OG into two
units identified as NORSO I and NORSO II for Norwegian Special Operations87
NORSO I consisted of three officers and thirty enlisted soldiers and was the main
effort NORSO II consisted of one officer and eighteen enlisted soldiers and was to serve
as the reserve prepared to reinforce NORSO I if necessary or to complete a separate
mission The NORSO I target was identified as the Nordland Railway more specifically
the Grana Bridge plus lesser targets along the line The operation was plagued with
numerous difficulties from weather to deadly plane crashes however it did go on in less
than optimal conditions They successfully destroyed two and a half kilometers of track
disrupting the troop movements A month later they were told the Germans had
capitulated and NORSO I and II then participated in the disarmament procedures and
performed policing duties in the areas of German surrender88
Finally the Chinese OG mission was much different than what the OG missions
in Europe The mission entailed ldquothe formation training equipping and attachment of
87ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
88ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
46
American personnel for twenty Chinese Commandosrdquo89 This mission was generated
from an agreement that Chinese divisions led by veteran Americans would be more
effective than a regular Chinese division The agreement was made in January of 1945
and the nucleus of the OG personnel for this mission was the recently redeployed French
OG elements of the Norwegian OG and a third OG that had conducted amphibious
operations in Burma Additional officers and enlisted men were brought from
replacement centers in the US raising the total number of US personnel to 160 officers
and 230 enlisted all under the command of a lieutenant colonel Each Commando unit
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 8th 9th and 10th consisted of 154 Chinese and 19 Americans The
units were task organized into a headquarters three rifle sections a 60 millimeter mortar
section a light machine gun section and a demolition section In the initial plans it was
thought that there would be 3000 Chinese troops but due to physical readiness only a
quarter were available In the eighth week training cycle the Commandos showed major
improvements and for the Chinese being selected and becoming a Commando were
achievements to be proud of Seven of the Commando units conducted operations with
hostilities ending before the others could be stood up and trained90
Office of Strategic Services Summary
The OSS had gained valuable experience first from the British who taught
Donovanrsquos agency everything they had learned conducting clandestine and covert
operations in the first years of the war The partnership between SOE and OSS helped the
89John Hamblet ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo available from httpwwwossog orgchinahtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
90Ibid
47
OSS get through its fits and starts Donovanrsquos vision made the OSS an organization that
at the end of the war was an organization with an extremely effective strategic
intelligence and unconventional warfare capability Donovan had opened the Pandorarsquos
Box of irregular warfare for which the politicians and conventional military leaders were
not ready and contributed to the OSS being disbanded at the end of the war However
with the post-World War II environment looming it would not take very long before it
became evident that these types intelligence and unconventional warfare operations
would become the norm of covert activity during the Cold War
Demobilization of the different resistance groups throughout the world ran the
gambit of no demobilization and just turning the elements over to the reinstalled
government to collecting up arms and returning the resistance members back to their preshy
war lives Will Irwin provides a glimpse into the minds of the exile governments with
respect to resistance elements and their post-war status in this case the French ldquoSpecial
Force Headquarters received [a] Jedburgh message requesting a parachute drop of
arms and ammunition to the Paris resistance But de Gaullersquos London-based
commander of the [French Forces of the Interior] postponed the operation in hopes
that the arrival of Allied forces in the city would preclude the need to further arm the
Paris resistance because it was predominantly communistrdquo91 The fear at the time was
that the communist resistance would take over Paris with French commanders ldquoanxious
to install a provisional noncommunist government in the city as soon as it fellrdquo92 This is
91Irwin 145
92Ibid
48
exactly what they did after Paris was liberated ldquo[wasting] no time in occupying
government buildings and establishing political controlrdquo93
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
OSS operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements Like
the SOE the OSS operations were shaping operational supporting the advance of Allied
troops Finally the operational approach was combat with each element conducting
combat advising or in the case of the operational groups conducting their own operations
As with the SOE some resistance groups they received direct support in the way of
weapons and supplies but no combat advisory support The operational groups were
somewhat different in their application more commando-like and probably low-
visibility versus clandestine in nature Depending on their mission profile they may have
conducted unilateral direct action missions special reconnaissance or working with
resistance elements conducted unconventional warfare
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations
Introduction
At the conclusion of the war President Trumann who disliked Donovan and his
agency gave the order to disband OSS immediately The SO capability was dropped the
Research and Analysis Section went to the State Department and everything else went to
the War Department Because the Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy had saved SI
and X-2 this would constitute a peacetime intelligence service McCloy then named this
93Ibid 145-6
49
organization the Strategic Services Unit which was then confirmed by directive from the
Secretary of War Michael Warner explains that the Executive Order also directed the
Secretary of War to ldquoliquidaterdquo OSS activities that were not in line with national
interests Seeing that most of the work that Donovan had accomplished with respect to
developing an irregular warfare capability all of it was counter to the conventional-
minded military leaders who were happy to get rid of this threatening concept for war
that they considered ungentlemanly anyway
Within two years a new organization no longer in the War Department was
established by the President and Congress initially called the Central Intelligence Group
The CIG became the CIA with signing of the National Security Act of 194794 The 1947
Act gave the CIA the responsibility for coordinating all intelligence activities within the
US government including gathering analyzing and distributing intelligence products A
follow-on act in 1947 provided the CIA with ldquoconfidential fiscal and administrative
proceduresrdquo which was appropriate for the kind of work the CIA was conducting95
With the end of World War II the Cold War was beginning to emerge and
communist ideology was beginning to spread In this conflict in which both sides had
nuclear weapons they could threaten each other but could not resort to war as had been
known in the past Now the US and the USSR jockeyed for position and began to give
covert support to governments and indigenous resistance forces to influence countries
and regions in order to expand control One of the tools that had been looked upon by the
94Warner
95Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd) 2
50
regular military with such disdain supporting resistance forces would now play a major
role in the Cold War
Common sense told many politicians within the Truman administration that
covert actions should be the responsibility of the military Their argument seemed easy-shy
during World War II the military was responsible for covert and clandestine operations
such as deception psychological operations subversion sabotage ldquobehind-the-linesrdquo
unconventional warfare to support indigenous elements raids and even assassinations
However as was mentioned earlier the uniformed leaders within the Pentagon did not
want to get stuck with a controversial and unorthodox method of warfare and
enthusiastically gave it up to the CIA ldquo[JCS] apparently was fearful of what it perceived
to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in subrosa [sic] cloak-andshy
dagger activitiesrdquo96 Although the CIA retained control of the peace time operations they
had wanted not only the covert paramilitary activities during peacetime as stipulated by
National Security Council 102 in June 1948 but in wartime as well97
However in the early 1950s the DOD would once again develop a capability to
support indigenous resistance forces with the stipulation that it would only do this in
wartime leaving the peacetime operations to the CIA The Special Forces were born and
prepared for operations behind enemy lines in Germany should the Cold War turn hot It
is also notable that the term chosen by the CIA for support to insurgency was
96Bank 161
97Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Psychological and Unconventional Warfare 1941-1952 (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2002) 69
51
ldquoparamilitary operationsrdquo which John Prados defines as ldquoThe type of clandestine
operations that creates forces resembling regular military unitsrdquo98
The Three Disciplines
The ldquothree disciplinesrdquo within the CIA are intelligence collection and analysis
counterintelligence or counterespionage and covert action99 As William Daugherty
points out the first two operations collection and counterintelligence are meant to be
clandestine in other words ldquothe actual operations their participants and their results are
intended to remain hidden from viewrdquo100
Intelligence collection is the collection of raw intelligence data from any number
of sources including human and technical means This is the classic form of intelligence
work and the primary role of the CIA and the one that it is most famous for This raw
intelligence is then analyzed and is provided to the policy makers as ldquofinishedrdquo
intelligence upon which they can make decisions regarding threats or intentions of other
nations or non-nation actors
Counterintelligence or counterespionage functions to deny an advantage to its
adversaries This can be done in numerous ways such as turning foreign intelligence
agents to provide information on their fellow spies or ensuring adequate protections are
in place to protect sensitive information Both collection and counterintelligence share
many of the same techniques and requirements
98Prados 17
99Daugherty 9
100Ibid 12
52
The final discipline and the one that applies to paramilitary operations is covert
action Daugherty defined covert action simply as ldquoinfluencerdquo--influencing foreign
audience in the case of paramilitary operations by using covert military operations
preferably through a third-party actor101 Covert action results are visible but the
perpetrator cannot be identified Daugherty further highlights the application of this to the
US government by quoting the 1981 Executive Order 12333 ldquospecial activities [covert
operations] conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are
planned and executed so that the role of the United States government is not apparent or
acknowledged publiclyrdquo102 Thus with respect to paramilitary operations the indigenous
or surrogate force provides the ldquofrontrdquo to the operations and keeps the action or influence
from being directly attributable to the US As Daugherty explains ldquothe covert aspect is
that the lsquosponsorrsquo (ie the government behind the program) remains hidden leaving the
observers to believe that the actors are indigenous citizens acting entirely of their own
volition in events that are local in originrdquo103
Interestingly the first official definition of covert action was articulated by
President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in Executive Order (EO) 12333 The definition reads
[S]pecial activities conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly and functions in support of such activities but which are not intended to influence United States political processes public opinion policies or media and do not include diplomatic
101Ibid
102Daugherty 13
103Ibid
53
activities or the collection or production of intelligence and related support functions104
Other key points of Executive Order 12333 are that intelligence activities are not
primarily covert action covert actions must not be conducted within the US and ldquoit
explicitly and unambiguously assigns all peacetime covert action missions to the
CIArdquo105
The executive order has worked well enough that it was amended into a federal
statute in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991 The federal statute defines covert
action as
[A]n activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political economic or military conditions abroad where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly but does not include (1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence (2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities106
One of the confusing points of Executive Order 12333 is the use of the words special
activities versus covert action At first glance they seem similar but they do not have as
much in common as it would seem Daugherty explain that included in the special
activities rubric are
[P]rograms such as training of foreign military security and intelligence services [which] have been especially important to presidents not because the programs seek change in a hostile regime but because they work to preserve a friendly regime107
104Ibid
105Ibid 13-14
106Ibid 14
107Ibid 15
54
So now that these two definitions show that covert action and special activities are related
but not the same thing Unlike covert actions special activities ldquoare not intended to
produce any overt event to influence an audience but instead are operations that are
meant to remain clandestine in all aspectsrdquo108 With respect to this thesis paramilitary
operations are thus covert unconventional warfare operations to influence such as
overthrowing a government and special activities are clandestine foreign internal defense
operations which could be used when a foreign government did not want overt US
support and training
Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability
Since the end of World War II the US military has not had the lead role in any
covert action programs aimed at supporting indigenous forces The military supported
CIA covert operations at times such as providing training teams for operations
According to Bob Woodward Special Forces soldiers accompanied CIA paramilitary
operatives into Northern Iraq before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom which provides
an example of once easily definable peace or war lines of separation becoming harder to
discern109
William Daugherty provides a list of reasons why DOD has not been able to
conduct peacetime covert operations
DOD does not possess nor has it ever possessed the statutory authority to conduct classic covert action except
108Ibid 16
109Bob Woodward Plan of Attack (New York NY Simon and Schuster 2004) 208-209
55
During a war formally declared by Congress
During any period covered by a report to Congress under the War Powers Act
When DOD is specifically tasked by the President because it is determined that the military is more likely to achieve particular objectives
CIA already has existing infrastructure to conduct covert actions such as its fleet of civilian-registered aircraft and maritime vessels
CIA already has recruited agents third-country nationals to carry out the required operational and support activities in foreign countries
DOD covert action forces would either have to give up protection of their Geneva Convention rights or any covert actions that were discovered they could be considered an act of war
CIA already has a presence in many of the 190 sovereign nations in the world which give them long operational reach support and clandestine infrastructure
CIA has almost instantaneous reaction or response time in any crisis situation to include the capability to travel in alias under civilian cover and with non-US travel documents
CIA has a core of career covert action specialists in each of the four broad categories of covert action ndash propaganda political action paramilitary and information warfare110
The obvious advantages currently go to the CIA however these same capabilities could
be developed within DOD with help of the CIA who is reluctant to share any of their
ldquotoysrdquo as Daugherty alludes to throughout his book
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations
CIA covert operations were widespread throughout the Cold War While some of
these programs remain classified there are a few notable paramilitary actions and special
110Daugherty 62-69
56
activities that provide an interesting comparison to Special Forces operations during this
same period As William Daugherty points out
From Trumanrsquos time through the Nixon years covert action programs served only two purposes they were intended either to stop the spread of Communism to countries that were not under the Soviet thumb by strengthening or supporting whatever regimes were in power or to weaken Communist or Communist-supported government by lsquoeroding their internal supportrsquo111
From the Nixon years on covert actions began to be used against non-Communist
targets
Eastern Europe 1949-1956
With the Soviet occupation of the Eastern European satellite nations the US and
Britain began a subversion campaign almost immediately The Ukraine was the first
country the MI6 and CIA actively sought to raise anti-Soviet resistance capabilities In
1945 MI6 was able to reestablish contact with the leader of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists When the State Department agreed to proceed with support the
mission was given to the foreign intelligence bureau and the Office of Policy
Coordination responsible for paramilitary operations112
The Office of Policy Coordination started numerous training camps in West
Germany to train Eastern eacutemigreacutes from the Soviet Union and Ukraine The first group of
agents was infiltrated into western Ukraine by parachute in 1949 The long-term plan was
to infiltrate 2000 agents throughout the Eastern Bloc countries The mission of the agents
111Ibid 124
112Peter Harclerode Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden (London Cassell and Company 2001) 5-7
57
was to report Soviet preparations for offensive operations against the west and support
resistance organizations to disrupt any Soviet operations against the west113
The CIA also infiltrated agents into Lithuania which in 1944 had 30000
resistance members of the group the ldquoForest Brotherhoodrdquo Latvia was thought to have
14000 well-armed fighters114 However none of these operations was able to keep an
agent alive for any period of time after his infiltration most succumbing to immediate
arrest or death For the CIA and Secret Intelligence Service no goals had been reached
despite a large expenditure of money and resources Daugherty offers these observations
on why these operations failed
[U]nrealistic goal of lsquorolling backrsquo Communist domination organizers mistakenly assumed that eacutemigreacute groups could be made secure from Soviet penetrations [and] Soviet military and intelligence units conducted formidable counter-insurgency operations in the target countries relentlessly hunting down the eacutemigreacute guerilla force Last these operations were betrayed by [a] KGB double agent115
Albania offered another opportunity for use of unconventional warfare this time
aimed at the regime of Enver Hoxha ldquothe dictator and secretary-general of the Albanian
Communist Partyrdquo116 The goal of this combined British and US effort as Peter
Harclerode explains ldquowas to wrest the country from the Sovietrsquosand assist the
establishment of a democratic pro-Western governmentrdquo117 The concept for this
113Ibid
114Ibid 21
115Daugherty 127
116Harclerode 35
117Ibid
58
operation was to instigate an uprising to overthrow Enver Hoxha with operations taking
place from 1949 to 1954 For this operation 250 Albanians were recruited by the exiled
Albanian National Council which would comprise Company 4000 and led by an
American officer Three platoons were raised and trained in varying levels of guerrilla
warfare and then parachuted into Albania Although able to infiltrate members of the
company most were quickly captured or killed by the effective internal security
apparatus of the Hoxha regime By August of 1954 it was decided to disband Company
4000 and dismantle the training school located in Western Germany The remaining
recruits were demobilized and then were dispersed throughout the US Britain and other
locations A CIA officer is quoted by Peter Harclerode providing significant insight into
the lessons learned from this operation
The Albanian operation was the first and only attempt by Washington to unseat a Communist regime within the Soviet orbit by paramilitary means It taught a clear lesson to the war planners Even a weak regime could not be overthrown by covert paramilitary means alone118
The activities against the Soviet Union and its satellite states in the early years of
the Cold War provide and interesting beginning to post-World War II unconventional
warfare All of these efforts were plainly unconventional warfare aimed at using
resistance organizations to disrupt of Soviet expansion and if war broke out to act as
shaping operations forcing the commitment of Soviet combat power to rear area security
These operations were all indirect using training areas in third-party countries and then
infiltrating these elements into the target country unilaterally with the radio being the
only connection to their CIA handlers
118Ibid 71
59
Korea
Korea provides a great example of two simultaneous unconventional warfare
efforts one by the CIA with a cover name of Joint Advisory Commission Korea and
other efforts by of conventional military officers with the most prominent effort being
that assigned to the Guerrilla Division of the 8240th Army Unit The conventional
military cadres had little or no formal unconventional warfare training or experiences119
These efforts were not coordinated until a year into the conflict when the Far East
Command which in 1953 would be redesignated as United Nations Partisan Infantry
Korea established the Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea to
synchronize these unconventional warfare efforts120 Before the establishment of the
Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea a single officer Colonel John
McGee who had worked with the Filipino guerrillas in World War II was assigned to the
Far East Command G-3 Operations as the sole member of the Miscellaneous Division
His initial task was ldquoto prepare a staff study on the possibilities of conducting guerrilla
operations against the North Koreans using some of the refugees from the northrdquo121
The CIArsquos mission was to ldquostep up pressure on the Chinese Communists by
supporting guerrilla movements on the mainland of China especially along lines of
communicationsrdquo122 The CIA successfully established a network of covert intelligence
119Ibid 179 and Col Ben S Malcom (ret) and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea (Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996) xi
120Malcom and Martz 14-15 27
121Ibid 15
122Major General (ret) John K Singlaub Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century (New York NY Summit Books 1991) 181
60
bases along the North Korean coast from which Korean agents could be dispatched
However the operation was never able to establish any significant resistance networks
The 8420th was able to establish a substantial resistance effort primarily due to
location and a large refugee population of willing supporters but the overall effects are
arguable since the resistance was rewarded for their actions based on their own reports
truthful or not Part of the operational constraints was that no American could operate in
North Korea due to the political risks which made it difficult for the American cadres to
exploit the efforts of the resistance123 In some cases there were documented successes
by American advisors such as then 1st Lieutenant Ben Malcolm that had special
permission or ldquoclandestinelyrdquo went ashore not having the consent of their higher
headquarters
The motivation for much of the resistance effort was the belief that the United
Nations would conduct a counteroffensive against the Chinese As Ben Malcolm
explains the assumptions being that when the offensive happened ldquothe partisans would
prove invaluable at their harassment and interdiction of enemy forces It was classic
unconventional warfare strategy using the partisans as an auxiliary to conventional
forces on the attack helping to shape the battlefieldrdquo124 An example of the effectiveness
of some of these units such as the 8086th Army unit which in less than a year claimed to
ldquohave conducted 710 operations killed 9095 and wounded 4802 and captured 385rdquo
123Ibid 183
124Malcom and Martz 17 61
and in the process destroyed thirty-seven road bridges twelve railway bridges and
twelve tunnels and seven hundred weaponsrdquo125
Demobilization of the partisan forces was called Operation Quicksilver and called
for the ldquointegration of the partisans into [Republic of Korea] unitsrdquo126 As Ben Malcolm
explains ldquoQuicksilver called for those partisans with at least two years of service to be
honorably discharged and given their uniforms mess gear four blankets two hundred
pounds of rice and transportation to their city of choice in South Koreardquo127 Those opting
to enlist for two years got the same incentives plus an extra one hundred pounds of rice
For their transfer from American to South Korean control the US only required them to
ldquoturn in their weapon and for some unexplained reason their canteen cuprdquo128 However
less than half of the 22000 partisans disappeared in a year and as Ben Malcolm
surmises some went south and some ostensibly went north with some elements still
requesting support by radio ldquowell after the armistice was signedrdquo129
The unconventional warfare operation in Korea can be summarized as covert
shaping operations aimed at disrupting the Chinese forces in support of the larger United
Nations mission thus these operations were shaping operations With regards to the
operational approach of these operations they are mostly direct support with only a few
examples of sanctioned combat advisory support
125Ibid 26
126Ibid 190
127Ibid 190-1
128Ibid 191
129Ibid
62
Tibet
In the case of Tibet five years elapsed between the beginning of the Chinese
invasion and the Tibetan uprising in 1956 President Eisenhower authorized covert
support to the unorganized ldquoTibetan internal resistance movementrdquo130 The intended
effect was ldquoto confront thwart or harassrdquo the Chinese Communist government The
program began in 1956 and ended by President Richard Nixon thirteen years later in
1969131 While eventually unsuccessful certain aspects of this covert action are
intriguing Beginning in December of 1956 an operation codenamed ST CIRCUS
commenced with a small groups of handpicked Tibetan resistance members were
exfiltrated out of the country by the CIA and taken to different training bases in the
Pacific and later America132 As Peter Harclerode explains
At a training camp established by the CIA the six Tibetans underwent four and a half months of extensive instruction in guerrilla warfare In addition to small arms they trained in the use of light support weapons including the 57mm recoilless rifle and 60mm mortar and well schooled in tactics fieldcraft map-reading navigation demolitions mine-laying sabotage booby traps and first aid They also received instruction on in intelligence-gathering skills and in [long range encrypted communications]133
These teams also learned to parachute and establish drop zones for receiving personnel
and equipment134 These teams were then parachuted back into Tibet to organize
130Daugherty 144
131Ibid
132Harclerode 348-9
133Ibid 350
134Ibid
63
resistance forces Although the program generated mixed results the concept was a
proven means of conducting indirect support
The program was shut down in 1974 after relations with China had warmed
during the Nixon administrations The Tibetans were left feeling ldquodiscarded by the
United States which no longer needed them now that they had served their purposerdquo135
There was no demobilization instead the US ldquoterminatedrdquo support not only paramilitary
assistance but political recognitions and support in the United Nations and the financial
support to the exiled government136
This indirect unconventional warfare program was also covert and unique in that
the majority of the training took place in the continental US at different locations but all
under extreme secrecy This program was a strategic shaping operation aimed at
indirectly influencing China
Cuba
Almost immediately after President Kennedy entered the White House in January
of 1961 he authorized the CIA to begin to conduct covert operations against the Castro
Government One element of this extensive covert action program that included
psychological operations and sabotage was a paramilitary effort This paramilitary
infamously known as the ldquoBay of Pigsrdquo would end in tragedy and failure The plan was
135Ibid 393
136Ibid
64
to conduct an invasion of Cuba using exiled Cuban resistance members and overthrow
Castro The training for this operation took place in a Guatemala a third-party country137
Regardless of the failures of this operation it does provide an interesting
unconventional warfare case study for analysis With respect to the operational signature
it may have begun as a covert operation but the supporting efforts such as ldquoair strikes
from US Navy and Marine squadrons on nearby aircraft carriersrdquo would have definitely
changed the signature and thus the deniability of US involvement As to whether this was
a decisive or shaping operation its failure masks the true intent--a decisive overthrow of
Castro This operation began as an indirect unconventional warfare effort with training
conducted in a third party country and arms and equipment provided by the CIA Had
the air support been provided as promised then this operation would have taken on a
direct or combat role depending on the level of naval air involvement While this was a
definite covert action gone bad operation it still provides a great lesson in the strengths
and weaknesses of unconventional warfare
Laos
The operation in Laos in the 1950rsquos and 1960rsquos is often incorrectly identified as
unconventional warfare when in fact it is more correctly a covert action in this case a
special activity to increase the Laotian government ability of defeating internal and
external threats138 Richard L Holm a former CIA officer describes the situation in
Laos ldquoLao communist forces known as the Pathet Lao (PL) were challenging the
137Daugherty 155
138Major Dean S Newman ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
65
governmentrsquos Royal Lao Army (FAR) throughout the country Although badly organized
and poorly trained and equipped the PL was bolstered by support from North Vietnam
whose units were call the VC (Vietnamese Communists)rdquo139 As Richard Holm explains
ldquoThe CIArsquos paramilitary efforts in Laos were divided roughly along geographic linesrdquo
north central and southern Laos and involved working with different tribal and ethnic
groupsrdquo140 Although the Pathet Lao threat to the Laotian government for the US
government greater concern was the North Vietnamese use of eastern Laos to support its
efforts in South Vietnam
The initial programs were under the auspices of the US Agency for International
Development and its advisors before becoming a covert action to ldquobolsterrdquo the Laotian
government141 Special Forces were also involved in White Star initially under the
command of Lieutenant Colonel ldquoBullrdquo Simons legendary for leading Son Tay Raid--the
prisoner-of-war rescue mission--some ten years later142 In the original program twelve
teams were under the auspices of the Agency for International Development Project
Evaluation Office later renamed the Military Assistance Advisory Group The effort was
initially called Operation Ambidextrous later to become Operation White Star143
139Richard L Holms ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 available from httpwwwodcigov csistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet accessed on 18 June 2005
140Ibid
141Ibid
142Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo available from httpwwwspecialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet accessed on 22 January 2006
143Ibid
66
The program ended in earnest in July of 1962 the Geneva negotiations on Laos
were signed stipulating that all foreign military personnel had to withdraw from Laos
The White Star advisors left the country as required while less than fifty of an estimated
10000 North Vietnamese soldiers passed through international observer checkpoints144
The Laotians were not demobilized but continued to receive covert support from the
CIA However with the end of the Vietnam war all US efforts in Laos ended and the
tribes who continued to fight were decimated many becoming refugees in Thailand
The operations in Laos were covert foreign internal defense shaping operations in
the larger context of the growing problems in South Vietnam However the White Star
operation was never able to successfully deny eastern Laos to the North Vietnamese It is
arguable whether the operational approach was combat or direct support but based on the
fact that Special Forcesrsquo suffered one killed-in-action and four missing in action during
this operation there were obviously combat advisor taking place145
Vietnam
In early 1961 President Kennedy tasked the CIA with initiating covert operations
against North Vietnam wanting to ldquoturn the heat up on Hanoi and do to them what they
were doing to the US ally in South Vietnamrdquo146 The real problem was that putting agents
and developing resistance forces in the North was that it was a denied area which some
144Charles M Simpson Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years (Novato CA Presidio Press 1983) 90
145Specialoperationcom
146Richard H Shultz Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi (New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999) xiii
67
considered to be a tougher environment than the Soviet Union China East Germany and
North Korea147 Over the next two years the President grew increasingly impatient with
CIA operations in North Vietnam and in 1963 turned over a majority of the programs to
military control in what was called ldquoOperation Switchbackrdquo This was a world-wide
replacement of CIA leadership of clandestine paramilitary operationsrdquo148
While there were many CIA programs developed a majority were turned over to
the military to run early in 1963 However one program that was an interagency effort to
defeat the insurgency called the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development
Support (CORDS) was established in 1967 Later to the ldquoRevolutionaryrdquo would be
changed to ldquoRuralrdquo but the programs goals did not--pacification of South Vietnamese
rural areas149 The CIArsquos role in CORDS was what initially was known as the
Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program later to be renamed Phoenix150 The
aim of this portion of Phoenix was to identify and neutralize the Viet Cong insurgent
underground organizational infrastructure in the rural towns and villages The Phoenix
programs emphasized four areas to attack the Viet Cong infrastructure (VCI) district
intelligence centers to identify VCI neutralize verified members of the VCI by either
capturing killing or conversion established rules for prosecuting VCI and placed the
147Ibid
148Simpson 138
149Major Ross Coffey ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
150Dale Andrade and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
68
emphasis of these efforts on local militias and police instead of the military In a four
year period beginning in 1968 Phoenix neutralized 81740 Viet Cong
The operations in North Vietnam proved that it is difficult to create a resistance or
insurgency from scratch especially in a denied area The programs were covert indirect
unconventional warfare operations with the goal of shaping the strategic environment
The Phoenix program was a low-visibility counterinsurgency program thus a foreign
internal defense It also was a shaping operation for the larger objective of CORDS
pacification plan and its operational approach was to empower local militias and police
so it was direct support
Nicaragua
The covert actions Finding for Nicaragua were signed by President Carter within
two weeks of the Sandinistas National Liberation Front rise to power in 1979151
However Carterrsquos Finding entailed nonlethal covert action only It was not until
December of 1981 that President Reagan would signed a Finding authorizing ldquocovert
funding and assistance for the anti-Sandinista rebelsrdquo better known as the Contras152
The initial funds and authorities provided funds to Argentina ldquoto organize and train a
five-hundred-man anti-Sandinistas unit for deployment in the Central American region
but with a proviso that the funds could not be utilized to overthrow the Nicaraguan
governmentrdquo153
151Daugherty 190
152Ibid 203
153Ibid 204
69
By the end of the program a second Finding authorized operations in Nicaragua
ldquocosting close to $100 million per year and the five-hundred-member Argentine unit was
transformed into a multi-thousand Nicaraguan rebel forcerdquo154 As Lynn Horton
highlights
[I]t is possible that 30000 or more Nicaraguans fought at some point with antigovernment forces making the contras [sic] one of the largest armed mobilizations of peasants in contemporary Latin American history In addition thousands more peasants participated in civilian collaborator networks that provided contra [sic] troops with food shelter and vital military information155
Despite the controversy in the US with the program the war ended in 1990 after the
Sandinistas National Liberation Front was defeated in the election that year The forces
were not demobilized by the US with some reverting to insurgency as necessary over the
next decade This controversial but successful program was a covert unconventional
warfare operation that ended up being a decisive operation through indirect support from
the different agencies in the US government
Afghanistan and the Soviets
The US had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of a Soviet-supported third-
world country Vietnam When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the Carter administration
saw an opportunity to return the favor As President Carterrsquos National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested ldquoWe now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its
Vietnamrdquo156 The Carter administration had already started covert operations months
154Ibid
155Lynn Horton Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 (Athens GA Ohio University 1998) xii
156Daugherty 189
70
before the Soviet invasion including a propaganda campaign indirect financial aid to
insurgents direct financial assistance to Afghan eacutemigreacute groups lethal and nonlethal aid
and offered training and support157 Afghanistan would prove to be the largest CIA
operation in history and one of the most successful As Anthony Joes highlights CIArsquos
success ldquoIt was perhaps the most satisfying experience the Americans ever had with
guerrilla warfarerdquo158
The Afghan mujahideen were much weaker militarily and politically than the
Vietnamese had been and they were facing a superpower that was not squeamish about
using brutal tactics against insurgents The other element that the mujahideen lacked was
unity of command and effort which was a huge obstacle but was partly due to the tribal
and warlord nature of the society
The amount of money the US expended was initially relatively small around 80
million dollars a year but this jumped to 470 million dollars a year in 1986 and to 700
million dollars by 1988159 The only major obstacle that the CIA faced was in its dealing
with the Pakistani intelligence service that favored four Afghan groups and ensured that
the majority of weapons over 70 percent were given to these groups However the
Pakistani Intelligence Service took an active roll in training and supporting the Afghans
to include numerous schools which trained over 80000 mujahideen by 1988160 The
157Ibid 188-189
158Anthony James Joes America and Guerrilla Warfare (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000) 279
159Ibid 310
160Harclerode 536
71
British were also very active throughout Afghanistan supporting the CIA efforts161 The
CIA also took advantage of the situation and was able to capture or recover some of the
Sovietrsquos premiere equipment including a Mi-24 attack helicopter162 The real coup was
the introduction of the Stinger missile which accounted for nearly 500 aircraft in 1987163
By 1988 the situation was untenable for the Soviets they had lost domestic support for
the war The Afghan mujahideen had succeeded in defeating the Soviets Once again the
US did not demobilize these elements although some effort was made to track the usage
of Stingers and to have unused Stingers turned back in
The efforts in Afghanistan provide a good example of coalition unconventional
warfare with numerous nations providing some type of support to the covert efforts
Afghanistan was an operational and strategic decisive operation removing the Soviets
from Afghanistan but also from the world scene leading up to the fall of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War The operational approach varied depending on the
nation some providing indirect monetary and political recognition of the effort to other
efforts that were direct support in nature providing training and sanctuary outside the
borders of Afghanistan Finally there were some combat advisory efforts by the US
Pakistan India China and other countries from the Middle East in the form of
intelligence agents and paramilitary advisors164
161Ibid 540
162Ibid 543-544
163Joes 311
164Harclerode 512
72
Central Intelligence Agency Summary
After a rough Post-World War II period the CIA proved to be a world class
intelligence organization From the first British visionaries who saw the potential of
unconventional warfare it has been proven time and again to be a viable method of
warfare It has been used to defeat the US and the Soviets and it continues to haunt the
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan Based on recent experience as a nation covert
paramilitary operations are now proven foreign policy tools
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Doctrinal Developments
In 1951 Lieutenant Colonels Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann were given the
charter to develop a DOD unconventional warfare capability by then chief of the Army
Psychological Warfare Brigadier General Robert McClure Both men understood
unconventional warfare due to their first-hand experiences in World War II working with
indigenous resistance organizations Lieutenant Colonel Bank was an OSS veteran
having supported resistance groups in France as a member of a Jedburgh team and later
in China165 Lieutenant Colonel Volkmann had organized the US Forces in the
Philippines--Northern Luzon ldquoone of the largest and best organized guerrilla operations
on Luzonrdquo166 He had also written the first Army Field Manual (FM) on guerrilla warfare
FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla [sic] Warfare that was published just
165Bank 13
166Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet accessed on 3 May 2006
73
as he and Bank began to develop the concepts for unconventional warfare and Special
Forces167
The combined experiences of Bank and Volckmann ran the gambit of
unconventional warfare one conducted clandestine operations in an environment where
he could speak the language and blend in while the other in a environment that he could
not blend into one trained in clandestine unconventional warfare the other with no
formal unconventional warfare training one in a combination urban and rural
environment the other in a rural jungle one as a member of a highly trained team the
other as part of an ad hoc organization and one conducted unconventional warfare
operation of generally short duration the other conducted long-term unconventional
warfare and finally one had experience using unconventional warfare to support
conventional operations while the other had experience conducting unconventional
warfare operations as the only effort until late in the war
However even with all of their experiences their most difficult task was to battle
conventional mindsets such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff that disliked the idea of
unconventional warfare As Bank explained ldquoIt apparently was fearful of what it
perceived to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in sub-rosa cloak-
and-dagger activities in the event of disclosurerdquo168 This contrasted to the new CIA that
wanted sole responsibility for unconventional warfare not just covert paramilitary
activities during peacetime as stipulated by National Security Council 102 in June
167Lieutenant Colonel Russell Volckmann US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare (Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951)
168Bank 161
74
1948169 Bank and Volckmann set out to establish an organization that could conduct UW
based on an operational element later the Operational Detachment Alpha which they
envisioned as ldquoa cadre that would mushroom into a huge guerrilla force actually a
phantom armyrdquo170
The same confusion that surrounds unconventional warfare today also haunted
Bank and Volkmann as Bank explains
Neither of us liked the fact that so much terminology was being bandied around concerning behind-the-lines operations The terms unconventional warfare clandestine operations unorthodox warfare and special operations were being used interchangeably171
When they refined the operational term they called it Special Forces Operations which
had a sole purpose of supporting resistance movements The operational concept
envisioned by Bank and Volckmann was
to infiltrate by air sea or land deep into enemy-controlled territory and to stay organize equip train control and direct the indigenous potential in the conduct of Special Forces Operations Special Forces Operations were defined as the organization of resistance movements and operation of their component networks conduct of guerrilla warfare field intelligence gathering espionage sabotage subversion and escape and evasion activitiesrdquo172
The focus on organizing resistance movements in this concept was Bank and Volkmannrsquos
attempt to separate Ranger-style missions from what they envisioned as Special Forces
missions
169Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins (Washington DC National Defense University 1982) 69
170Bank 166
171Ibid
172Ibid 179
75
This was important too since Bank and Volkmann had been under pressure from
the beginning to combine these two forces together This combined unit was supposed to
conduct all aspects of behind the line operations from unilateral raids and sabotage to
support to guerrilla movements Bank explains the differences ldquoThe Rangers were
strictly short-term shallow-penetration units whereas [Office of Strategic Services] had
long term much more complex strategic capabilitiesrdquo173 The Special Forces Operations
concept was meant to separate the purposes of Special Forces and Rangers Over the next
fifty years Special Forces added many of the missions which Bank and Volkmann fought
so hard to keep from the Special Forces charter However in times of budget cuts and
force reductions Special Forces had to adapt to the times to maintain the force and
relevance Vietnam and the Cold War would provide the impetus for developing new
capabilities that were not in the original charter developed by Bank and Volckmann
In the 1960rsquos as the Cold War began to be fought by communist-backed
revolutionists insurgents and guerrillas President Kennedy called upon the men who
trained to fight as guerrillas to now fight against these threats in an effort to contain
communist expansion in other words ldquofight fire with firerdquo President Kennedy set out in
earnest in the early 1960rsquos through a series of letters to the Army to get the military as a
whole to change the conventionally-bound military mindset to adapt to this new type of
political-insurgent warfare Thomas K Adams explains the reaction of the conventional
military to the request of the President
President Kennedy called for ldquoa wholly new kind of strategy a wholly different kind of force and therefore a new and different kind of military trainingrdquo What he got was business as usual but with [unconventional warfare] trimmings
173Ibid 144
76
regardless of the wrapper the contents of the package remained conventional warfare Describing the Armyrsquos reaction to Kennedyrsquos program Maxwell Taylor remembered feeling that ldquoall this dust coming out of the White House really isnrsquot necessaryrdquo It was ldquosomething we have to satisfy but not much heart went into [the] workrdquo He sounded a long standing theme when he added that he felt the Special Forces were not doing anything that ldquoany well-trained unitrsquo couldnrsquot dordquo174
Thomas Adams also noted as a result of these letters what occurred was ldquoan attempt to
fit the existing military structure to the counterinsurgency problemrdquo175 There were
numerous studies and conferences on topics such as special warfare counterinsurgency
and guerrilla operations during this time However the outcome of all these studies was a
limited counterinsurgency capability based on conventional light infantry tactics with no
change in understanding of the complex cultural and political elements of the problem176
In the 1960s despite the problems with the conventional military establishment
accepting its role in counterinsurgency Special Forces proved highly successful in
fighting insurgencies and guerrillas throughout the world In Vietnam for example
Special Forces programs such as the Civilian Irregular Defense Group and Mobile Strike
Forces were highly successful operations using indigenous or surrogate forces the
Montagnards and Chinese Nungs respectively Doctrine began to catch up to the
counterinsurgency actions with subtle shifts in 1965 to include discussions of Special
Forcesrsquo roles in counterinsurgency in FM 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques
and FM 31-21 Special Forces Operations
174Thomas K Adams US Special Operations in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare (Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998) 70
175Ibid 73 176Ibid
77
With the addition of counterinsurgency in these manuals the confusion between
counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare began with a mixing of terms One such
example is found in the 1961 FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces
Operations in which a new command structure is introduced called the Joint
Unconventional Warfare Task Force This task force would provide command and
control to operational elements within the theater of operations177 This headquarters
concept was put into practice in 1964 when the Military Assistance Command Vietnam-
Studies and Observation Group was created as a joint unconventional warfare task force
As Thomas K Adams explains that this Studies and Observation group was ldquoresponsible
for special operations in Burma Cambodia Laos North and South Vietnam and border
areas of Chinardquo178 In hindsight including unconventional warfare in the task force name
was probably a misnomer since all of the operations encompassed in the region were
either overt or covert foreign internal defense and special reconnaissance and to a lesser
extent direct action The only unconventional warfare operations during this period were
the failed attempts to establish and support a resistance force in North Vietnam179
In the 1963 version of FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces a new
counterinsurgency unit called the Special Action Force appears180 The Special Action
Force ldquois a specially-trained area-oriented partially language-qualified ready force
177Department of the Army FM 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1961) 14
178Adams 118 179Shultz 3
180Department of the Army FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1963) 1
78
available to the commander of a unified command for the support of cold limited and
general war operationsrdquo181 This Force is build specifically around a Special Forces group
with the mission of ldquoproviding training operational advise and assistance to indigenous
forcesrdquo182 The manual suggested that the Special Action Force be task organized with
ldquocivil affairs psychological warfare engineers medical intelligence military police and
Army Security Agency detachmentrdquo183 Another interesting feature of this organization
as explained in the FM 31-22 is the conventional army brigade-sized backup force As
the manual describes ldquoBrigade-size backup forces are area oriented and designed to back
up a particular [Special Action Force] These forces are committed to an operational area
when the capabilities of the [Special Action Force] have been exceededrdquo184
Charles Simpson III explains the real world application of the Special Action
Forces concept
Four Special Action Forces came into being one on Okinawa built around the 1st Special Forces Group for the Far East (SAFASIA) one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America and tow at Fort Bragg organized around the new 3rd and 6th Groups for Africa and the Middle East In Europe the 10th Special Forces Grouphellipassumed functions much like those of the large [Special Action Forces] but without their resources185
181Ibid 16
182Ibid 20
183Ibid 16
184Ibid 42
185Simpson 69
79
By 1972 the Special Action Force concept had ended with no group ever fully deployed
instead being piecemealed throughout the theaters186 One of the major shortcomings of
the program was the fact that a Special Action Force had to be requested by the
ambassador which was unlikely to be supported by the rest of the country team which
had civilian capabilities that were similar to the SAF This interagency rivalry
significantly reduced the effectiveness and usefulness of the Special Action Force
concept and led to the concepts demise187
A doctrinal shift occurred with the 1969 publication of FM 31-21 Special Forces
Operations which addressed new missions of support for stability operations and
unilateral operations--the precursors of foreign internal defense direct action personnel
recovery strategic or special reconnaissance This manual is still focused heavily on
unconventional warfare with this topic covered in the first nine of eleven chapters
however one chapter devoted to support for stability operations and one to covering the
employment of Special Forces ldquoin additional military operationsrdquo Stability operations in
this manual are defined as
internal defense and internal development operations and assistance provided by the armed forces to maintain restore or establish a climate of order within which responsible government can function effectively and without which progress cannot be achieved188
It also clarifies that unconventional warfare doctrine is ldquonot entirely applicable to overt
stability operationsrdquo and stipulates that
186Adams 100 187Simpson 68-9
188FM 31-21 10-1
80
Many [unconventional warfare] tactics and techniques such as those employed to gain the support of the local population to establish intelligence nets and to conduct tactical operations such as raids and ambushes may be adapted to stability operations189
The manual also describes ldquoadditional military operationsrdquo as ldquounilateral deep
penetrations to conduct reconnaissance surveillance and target acquisition attack
critical strategic targets recovery of friendly personnel in remote or hostile areas and
training of US andor allied personnel in Special Forces operational tactics and
techniquesrdquo190 Also of note is the definition of direct action mission ldquoOvert or
clandestine operations in hostile or denied areas which are conducted by US
[unconventional warfare] forces rather than by US conventional forces or through US
direction of indigenous forcesrdquo191 This is interesting because it denotes difference
between the unilateral direct operations and the use of indigenous forces
Unconventional warfare would continue to be the primary operation and bases for
all the Special Forces field manuals throughout the 1970s Foreign internal defense
emerged in the mid-1970s in Special Forces doctrinal manuals The definition of foreign
internal defense in the 1978 Special Text 31-201 Special Forces Operations is directly
out of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Publication 1 and is defined as the ldquoparticipation by
civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by
another government to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and
189Ibid
190Ibid 11-1
191Ibid Glossary 1
81
insurgencyrdquo192 It also describes a Special Action Force-type organization based once
again on a Special Forces group augmented with ldquohighly specialized skills need to assist
a host country to develop internal defenserdquo193 This special text notes that a augmented
Special Forces group can train advise and assist the host countryrsquos regular or
paramilitary forces as well as compliment or expand the US security assistance efforts of
the country team for short periods of time194
Between late 1970 and 1990 the changes in Special Forces doctrine were not
captured in writing The 1990 publication of FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces
Operations superseded the last FM 31-20 from 1977195 This new manual detailed eight
Special Forces missions and activities unconventional warfare foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism collateral activities and other
special operations activities196 While the definition of unconventional warfare is exactly
the same as today it is still obvious that unconventional warfare is directly related to
ldquoinsurgency or other armed resistance movementsrdquo197 Of note this manual begins to
address the change in insurgent environments from rural based to urban based In
192US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations (Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978) A-1
193Ibid
194Ibid
195Department of the Army FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 20 April 1990) Cover
196Ibid Index
197Ibid 3-2
82
response the manual explains that ldquoglobal urbanization dictates a shift in emphasis from
rural [guerrilla warfare] to all aspects of clandestine resistancerdquo198 This is the first time
in the doctrinal manuals that clandestine operations are discussed with regards to the
urbanization of insurgency
The Gulf War revitalized Special Forces having conducted numerous operations
employing special reconnaissance and coalition support Like many missions coalition
support was a necessary mission with only a couple of options for manning this force-shy
Special Forces was the most qualified In a misguided attempt to keep unconventional
warfare current to the times coalition support operations were added to unconventional
warfare This idea was further explained in the June 2001 FM 3-0520 Special Forces
Operations ldquoThe conventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and
led in varying degrees by SF and US allies represents the newest evolution of UW-related
surrogate forcesrdquo199 The argument could be made that elements of the 10th Special
Forces Group conducted unconventional warfare using Kuwaiti military units that had
fled the Iraqi invasion Although the actual operational impact was small due to the small
size of the ldquofreerdquo Kuwaiti force the civil-political impact of having a Kuwaiti unit help in
liberating its country was huge200 The use of surrogates or ldquosomeone who takes the
place of or acts for anotherrdquo was first addressed in the 1990 version of FM 31-20 in
198Ibid
199FM 3-0520 2-6
200Susan L Marquis Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces (Washington DC Brookings Institute Press 1997) 234
83
response to coalition warfare201 The 2001 FM 3-0520 tries to explain this concept to
prove coalition support is a valid unconventional warfare operation ldquoFrom a US point of
view these coalition forces and resources are surrogates and act as substitutes for US
troops and resources reducing US commitmentldquo202 The manual also highlights that
ldquoconventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and led in varying
degrees by SF and US allies represent the newest evolution in UW-related surrogate
forcesrdquo203
After the Gulf War as evidenced by the emphasis that coalition support was ldquothe
newest evolutionrdquo unconventional warfare was standing on shaky ground within the
Special Forces community204 The general feeling within Special Forces was
unconventional warfare no longer was a viable mission in the post-Cold War
environment and should be relegated to a lesser role or dropped altogether John Collins
highlights this feeling when he wrote ldquoCongress therefore might weigh the advisability
of discarding [unconventional warfare] as a statutory rolerdquo in favor of foreign internal
defense205
In October of 1994 Colonel Mark Boyatt then the Commander of 3rd Special
Forces Group wrote an article in Special Warfare recommending unconventional warfare
201FM 3-0520 2-5
202Ibid 2-6
203Ibid
204Ibid
205John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
84
and the other Special Forces core missions should fall under the umbrella of a new term
unconventional operations206 This concept did not catch on and in fact received some
critical reviews from his contemporaries One of his critics was Colonel Glenn Harned
who explains that a single catch-all mission like unconventional operations would not
allow a Special Forces element to stay proficient in all the skills sets necessary required
to be ldquounconventional operations qualifiedrdquo207
In October of 1998 the Commanding General of the United States Army Special
Forces Command (Airborne) then Major General William Boykin asked for input on the
relevance of unconventional warfare208 Although the results of this question are difficult
to determine from a doctrinal standpoint one of the replies highlights the
misunderstanding abound in the branch In answering this question Commander of the
3rd Special Forces Colonel Gary Jones and Major Chris Tone coauthored an article that
attempted to explain that although unconventional warfare had replaced the term guerrilla
warfare guerrilla warfare was still the primary mission of Special Forces They further
highlighted that ldquoIn the minds of most [sic] [Special Forces] soldiers [unconventional
warfare] doctrine has been oversimplified [Unconventional warfare] is just [foreign
internal defense] in a denied areardquo209 The authors go on to further misrelate insurgency
206Colonel Mark D Boyatt ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
207Colonel Glenn M Harned ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
208Kershner 84
209Colonel Gary M Jones and Major Chris Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 6
85
and guerrilla warfare when they state ldquoThe contrast between the operational
environments of the two unconventional warfare missions are striking [Guerrilla
Warfare] is conducted when our nation is at war insurgency is conducted when our
nation is at peacerdquo210 This article received a lot of positive feedback throughout the
community One supporter said that it ldquomarked the beginning of a [unconventional
Warfare] renaissance in the [Special Forces] communityrdquo211 However retired Colonel J
H Crerer wrote a critical review highlighting the mistakes of the authors for example
ldquoFirst [unconventional warfare] includes [guerrilla warfare] so it would be illogical to
use the terms interchangeably Second and more important [unconventional warfare]
also includes subversion and sabotagerdquo212
In 2000 the United States Army Special Forces Command again broached the
question of unconventional warfarersquos relevance and attempted to refocus the branch on
unconventional warfare to ensure Special Forces relevancy as the Army was concurrently
conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates The end result was a Special Forces
Commandrsquos concept called Unconventional Warfare 2020 Colonel Michael Kershner
summarized the findings of Unconventional Warfare 2020 in a series of articles in the
spring of 2001 that highlighted the confusion with unconventional warfare and redefined
unconventional warfare Colonel Kershnerrsquos explained that the new definition of
unconventional warfare would encompass all of the other core Special Forces missions
210Ibid
211Major Mike Skinner ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare as an SF Missionrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16
212Colonel J H Crerar ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37
86
to include foreign internal defense213 This subtle change to the definition was widely
accepted by the Special Forces branch which had been struggling for years to find a
more definitive description of unconventional warfare that would ensure a ldquonicherdquo
mission that no other military unit could conduct As Colonel Kershner explained in an
interview with Dennis Steele for an article in ARMY Magazine ldquoWe donrsquot want to be
stuck in the past or step into the future in a way that is irrelevant We must focus on
relevant and unique capabilities and [unconventional warfare] is our most unique
capabilityrdquo214
One other major point of departure from the legacy unconventional warfare
doctrine discussed by Kershner was the removal of the seven phases of US-sponsored
insurgency from doctrine Kershner stated that this seven-phases construct was ldquooutdated
[and it was] more appropriate to describe [unconventional warfare] in terms of current
US doctrinal phases--engagement crisis response war-fighting and return to
engagementrdquo215 The theory that US sponsors unconventional warfare in seven phases
emerged in the 1965 version of FM 31-20 Special Forces Operations (the 31-20 series
being the predecessor to 3-0520) However even earlier Russell Volkmannrsquos 1951 FM
31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare provided a similar phasing
213Kershner 84
214Dennis Steele ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article on-line] available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet accessed on 14 May 2006
215Ibid 87
construct in which he discussed ldquoseveral operational phasesrdquo including psychological
preparations initial contact infiltration organization build-up and exploitationrdquo216
Although not part of his suggested phases Volkmann discusses demobilization as
a separate chapter217 The unconventional warfare efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq after 11
September would validate the seven-phased construct However in Afghanistan and Iraq
the phases were compressed due to political constraints and then the tempo of operations
The only phase that was not validated during operation in Afghanistan and Iraq was the
seventh phase demobilization While some resistance elements were demobilized and
returned to society a vast majority continued to serve in the postconflict phases The
seven-phase construct had been developed based on the experiences of World War II in
which there was a rapid demobilization of forces at the end of the war The new
experiences with postconflict operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may force a change in
this final phase of unconventional warfare as it transitions to foreign internal defense218
Less than six months after Kershnerrsquos articles were published the events of 11
September transpired By the summer of 2003 unconventional warfare had been
successfully conducted in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and had been used to
support the conventional offensive operations against Saddam Hussein In each of these
efforts unconventional warfare would transition to foreign internal defense of an
intensity and scale that had not been encountered by US forces since Vietnam The events
of 11 September had one more effect the results of the Unconventional Warfare 2020
216FM 31-21 37-38
217Ibid 227-232
218Authorrsquos own experiences from Northern Iraq April 2003
88
studies were lost and not incorporated into the 2003 version of FM 3-05201 Special
Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations The first paragraph in the manual describes
the aspects of unconventional warfare explaining ldquoThe intent of Unites States (US)
[unconventional warfare] operations is to exploit a hostile powerrsquos political military
economic and psychological vulnerability by developing and sustaining resistance forces
to accomplish US strategic objectivesrdquo219 It also began to capture some of the lessons
learned from Operation Enduring Freedom the most important being that unconventional
warfare operations may be supported by conventional operations instead of the more
traditional role unconventional warfare supporting conventional operations As the
manual explains ldquothere are times when introduction of conventional forces does not
take the main effort away from unconventional operations in fact the conventional
forces may support the unconventional forcesrdquo220 The newest FM 3-05201 is currently
in final unreleased draft form and is classified SECRET This will be the first
unconventional warfare manual that has been classified in its entirety In the past a
classified supplemental pamphlet supplemented the unclassified manual such as the 1961
version of FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations with a classified
supplemental FM 31-21A
In mid-January 2004 the ldquoCody Conferencerdquo was held in Cody Wyoming ldquoto
identify concepts that will be necessary for shaping the future of Army Special
219FM 3-05201 1-1
220Ibid 1-3
89
Forcesrdquo221 The twelve members of this conference included a number of senior active
duty and retired Special Forces officers as well as representatives from acclaimed
members of the media academia and private sector222 With the war on terrorism as the
focal point the conference studied the current conflict and worked to define Special
Forces role against this new threat Major General Lambert highlights that ldquoSpecial
Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare which includes counterinsurgency and guerrilla
warfare Special Forces should be chartered to monitor and combat insurgencies even
though other US forces will move on to new prioritiesrdquo223 One of the recommendations
of this panel was the development of a ldquostanding deployable Special Forces
Headquartersrdquo that would be capable of conducting ldquosustained guerrilla warfarerdquo224
These last two points highlight the continued confusion of unconventional warfare
guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency that reaches even the highest levels of Special
Forces
The conference did develop a number of recommendations in addition to the just
mentioned deployable headquarters including the need for a ldquoglobal environment of
seamless information- and intelligence-sharing [improving] coalition allied and
surrogate intelligence and operational capabilitiesrdquo and ldquo[Conducting] area-denial
221Major General Geoffrey C Lambert ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20
222Ibid 27
223Ibid 23
224Ibid
90
area-control and remote-area operations either directly or with partnersrdquo225
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense would obviously play a significant
role in establishing this global capability by empowering the coalition partners to defeat
or disrupt their own internal and external threats as well as remove unfriendly regimes
that could be providing sanctuary for ones enemies as the Taliban did for Al Qarsquoida
Major General Lambert also mentions the importance of Special Forces as a ldquoforce
multiplierrdquo that ldquoconserves conventional military force for the main effortsrdquo226
In 1990 FM 100-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict the first
manual specifically written for low-intensity conflict was published in a joint effort by
the Army and Air Force The writers explain that ldquoThis manual fills a void which has
existed in the Army and Air Force for some time It complements warfighting doctrine by
providing operational guidance for military operations in [low intensity conflict] from
which implementing doctrine can be developedrdquo227 FM 100-20 also described an
organization called the Foreign Internal Defense Augmentation Force which could
augment or support the Security Assistance Organization in ldquosituations that range from
conditions short of open hostility to limited war They may locate strategically and vary
in size and capabilities according to theater requirementsrdquo228 This augmentation force if
225Ibid 22
226Ibid 24
227Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force Field Manual 100shy20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 5 December 1990) 1-1
228Ibid A-7 91
very similar to the previous described Special Action Forces of the late 1960s and early
1970s
The implementing doctrine for FM 100-20 took the form of FM 31-20-3
published four years later and titled Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and
Procedures for Special Forces The manual provided an extensive ldquohow tordquo handbook
for foreign internal defense The concepts of indirect direct and combat support to
foreign internal defense was not portrayed in this manual or its parent manual FM 100shy
20 The 1996 joint foreign internal defense manual JP 3-071 was reverse engineered
from the Special Forces manual However the joint manual was much more detailed and
had more depth
The family of Army manuals FM 100-5 and FM 3-0 Operations manuals have
only provided a basic description of foreign internal defense and to a much lesser extent
unconventional warfare The 1993 version of FM 100-5 combines support to insurgencies
and counterinsurgencies in three paragraphs total229 The 2001 version of FM 3-0
provides a much more in-depth description of foreign internal defense than the previous
FM 100-5230 However support to insurgencies is covered in three sentences in the
ldquostability operationsrdquo chapter explaining in essence that it takes a National Command
Authority (term no longer used) for Army forces to support an insurgency that Army
229Department of the Army FM 100-5 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 13-7 to 13-8
230Department of the Army FM 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 9-8 to 9-9
92
special operations forces are best suited for this supporting role and that conventional
forces can support these operations if necessary231
The manual addresses special operations in a supporting role only ldquo[Special
operations forces] can reinforce augment and complement conventional forces In
war [special operations forces] normally support the theater campaign or major
operations of the [joint force commander]rdquo232 Finally the FM 3-0 describes the
battlefield organization as ldquothe allocation of forces in the [area of operation] by purpose
It consists of three all-encompassing categories of operations decisive shaping and
sustainingrdquo233 Decisive operations ldquoare those that directly accomplish the task assigned
by the higher headquarters Decisive operations conclusively determine the outcome of
major operations battles and engagementsrdquo234 FM 3-0 further defines shaping
operations as ldquo[creating] or [preserving] conditions for success of the decisive
operationsrdquo235
While FM 3-0 does not directly relate these operations to unconventional warfare
or foreign internal defense examples exist that provide ample evidence that these
operations can be decisive and shaping With regards to unconventional warfare
operations supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 were
decisive and resulted in the overthrow of the Taliban while the operations in Northern
231Ibid 9-10
232Ibid 2-8
233Ibid 4-22
234Ibid 4-23
235Ibid
93
Iraq supporting the Kurdish resistance fixed thirteen of twenty Iraqi divisions in the
North shaping the battlefield for the conventional forces invading from the south An
example of a Special Forces foreign internal defense effort that was decisive is the direct
support to the El Salvadoran military to defeat the Farabundo Marti National Liberation
Front (FMLN) and a shaping operation is the success Special Forces had in South
Vietnam developing indigenous counterinsurgency forces in support of the larger
conventional campaign None of these examples have found their way into the joint or
Army doctrine The new FM 3-0 is currently in un-releasable final draft form
Much like the Army operations doctrine the 2001 JP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint
Operations takes only a paragraph to describe unconventional warfare calling it support
to insurgency This paragraph reads
Support to Insurgency An insurgency is an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a legally constituted government through the use of subversion and armed action US forces may provide logistic and training support to an insurgency but are not normally involved in the conduct of combat operations236
The current draft of the new JP 3-0 now called Joint Operations has added one
component to the above definition ldquoThe United States may support an insurgency against
a regime threatening US [sic] interests (eg US [sic] Support [sic] to the Mujahadin [sic]
resistance in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion)rdquo237 While the both publications
capture some elements of US support to insurgency such as training and logistics support
it has obviously not been updated since Operation Iraqi Freedom based on the final
236Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 10 September 2001) V-13
237Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) VII-9
94
statement that US forces ldquonormallyrdquo donrsquot conduct combat operations However the
description differs from the description found in FM 3-0 Operatioins in one respect it
provides a real-world example of unconventional warfare describing US efforts to
support the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets
Another important concept in the soon-to-be published Joint Publication 3-0
provides a new operational ldquophasing modelrdquo shown in figure 1 which has some
applicability to this study238 This model is important to this study because it provides the
first doctrinal recognition that any campaign is going to have multiple phases occurring
simultaneously and that operations do not stop at what has previously called conflict
termination--the end of combat operations For this study it will be important to
determine how the seven phases of US sponsored unconventional warfare fit within this
phasing construct This conceptual models has six phases--one phase covering peacetime
engagement and five the phases of an operation
238Ibid IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfare conceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
95
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfareconcepts approved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model
Phase 0-Shape-(Prevent and Deter) This is the normal peacetime engagement
environment in which the US forces are conducting operations to support the theater
security cooperation plan
96
Phase 1-Deter-(Crisis Defined) This is the first step in resolving conflict by
demonstrating military capabilities and the resolve of the US and it partners in an attempt
to deter an opponent from acting or forcing the US to react
Phase 2-Seize the Initiative-(Assure Friendly Freedom of Action and Access to
Theater Infrastructure) During this phase joint forces are applied to the problem to set
the condition for the dominate phase and may include military action and diplomatic
efforts
Phase 3-Dominate-(Establish Dominate Force Capabilities and Achieve Full
Spectrum Superiority) This is the phase that is focused on ldquobreaking the enemyrsquos will for
organized resistance or in noncombat situations control of the operational environmentrdquo
Phase 4-Stabilize-(Establish Security and restore services) This phase is required
when there is ldquolimitedrdquo or ldquono functioning legitimate civil governing entity present The
joint force may have to perform limited local governancerdquo
Phase 5-Enable Civil Authority-(Enable authorities and Redeploy) During this
phase the US joint forces support the legitimate government and more importantly it
marks the military end state and redeployment239
The new JP 3-0 also highlights that the ldquoStabilizerdquo phase may characterize the
transition from ldquosustained combatrdquo to ldquostability operationsrdquo It also rightly explains
ldquoStability operations are conducted as needed to ensure a smooth transition to the next
phase and relieve sufferingrdquo240 However the model does not provide a description of
how to identify this transition The importance of this graph will become apparent during
239JP 3-0 Joint Operations IV-33 to IV-37
240Ibid IV-36
97
the analysis portion of this thesis especially with respect to phasing unconventional
warfare and the transitions between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
Other documents are available to provide some insight into the future of Special
Forces doctrine with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense in
lieu of these soon-to-be-released doctrinal manuals These are the 2004 National Military
Strategy the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and finally the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement These three documents may hold the keys to
future unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
The 2004 National Military Strategy identifies six capabilities required for the US
to win decisively ldquoconventional warfighting unconventional warfare homeland
security stability and postconflict operations countering terrorism and security
cooperation activities [italics-authorsrsquo emphasis]rdquo241 This statement has enormous
implications for Special Forces in the future since three of these capabilities are Special
Forces-specific and are tied directly to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review is another important document with
respect to the future of unconventional warfare One of the Quadrennial Defense Review
decisions is to ldquoFurther increase [Special Operations Forces] capability and capacity to
conduct low-visibility persistent presence missions and a global unconventional warfare
241Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategy of the Unites States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow (Washington DC Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2004) 13
98
campaignrdquo The key point here is the idea of a ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo
and determining exactly what that means242
The term ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo is used in the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement but is not defined The posture statement does
define unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo243 These definitions are not supported by current joint definitions of
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense adding to the overall confusion The
posture statement identifies five missions that will ldquohelp establish the conditions to
counter and defeat terrorismrdquo unconventional warfare psychological operations foreign
internal defense special reconnaissance and civil affairs244 It is interesting that direct
action and counterterrorism are not mentioned in this list of operations since these two
operations are the major capability that the Special Operations Command provides to the
overall military effort245 Not addressing these terms may be an indicator that current
studies on unconventional warfare are pointing to direct action and counterterrorism
operations against non-state actors and their infrastructure as being unconventional
242Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
243United States Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 5 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8-06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
244Quadrennial Defense Review Report 1 see glossary for definitions
245FM 3-0520 2-1 see glossary for definitions
99
The history of Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine provides a window to the past The history of unconventional warfare doctrine is
plagued with confusion from the beginning From vague definitions to mission creep the
concepts of supporting insurgencies found in the Special Forces unconventional warfare
doctrine has been proven since 11 September The current attempt to change the
unconventional warfare doctrine to align with the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo is
not a new concept either and is the direct result of the vagueness of the unconventional
warfare definitions This idea is reinforced by studying foreign internal defense doctrine
which provides by far the most clear and concise definitions and doctrine
South Vietnam
The confusion over unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense reached
its climax in Vietnam Michael McClintock explains in terms of guerrilla warfare
(unconventional warfare) and counterinsurgency (foreign internal defense) ldquoThe
confusion of guerrilla warfare with counterinsurgency was in evidence from the
inceptions of the American effort to wage counterinsurgency in Vietnam What is
extraordinary is that very little thought appears to have gone into this distinctionrdquo He
suggests that ldquothe [Special Forces] generally went about the task of counterinsurgency as
if engaged in guerrilla operations behind enemy linesrdquo246
Regardless of the confusion the Special Forces programs were easily among the
most productive in the entire war effort The main Special Forces efforts were with the
246Michael McClintock Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 (wwwstatecraftorg 2002) available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet accessed on 21 February 2006
100
Civilian Irregular Defense Group program the Mobile Guerrilla Forces and Mike
Forces Another effort that is sometimes confused with unconventional warfare was the
cross-border operations conducted by the Studies and Observation Group which utilized
surrogates such as Chinese Nungs and turned former Viet Cong guerrillas in what
would more precisely be called special reconnaissance The nearly decade-long Civilian
Irregular Defense Group as Charles Simpson highlights ldquoinvolved thousands of
Vietnamese civilians millions of dollars and approximately 100 camps spread out from
the Demilitarized Zone to the Gulf of Siamrdquo247 This program unlike the Strategic
Hamlet Programs did not relocate villages but trained them to defend their own villages
which is captured by its original name--Village Defense Program248 While originally
defensive in nature it later evolved into an active defense sending out combat patrols as
early warning as well as interdicting Viet Cong or North Vietnamese units when these
villages were located in strategic locations such as astride to enemy lines of
communications
Another successful program that grew out of the necessity to have a quick
reaction force to react to Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacks on the Civilian
Irregular Defense Group camps was the Mobile Strike Forces better known as ldquoMike
Forcesrdquo The Mike Force was originally established in 1965 and formed from a battalion
of Chinese Nungs which is a tribal group originally from the Chinese and North
Vietnamese border The tenacity of these fighters had endeared them to the French and
247Simpson 95
248Ibid 99
101
were raised into ldquoNung Divisionsrdquo by the French and were settled into enclaves in South
Vietnam249
A similar program to the Mike Force was created called the Mobile Guerrilla
Force ldquoto conduct guerrilla warfare in the vast stretches of enemy-controlled territory
outside areas of operations of CIDG Campsrdquo250 An average Mobile Guerrilla Force was
made up of one Mike Force Company and a reconnaissance platoon As Charles Simpson
notes ldquoThe concept was to infiltrate these company-sized forces usually by foot and to
operate against the enemyrsquos lines of communications usually branches of the Ho Chi
Minh Trailrdquo251
All of these programs were without a doubt foreign internal defense missions
despite their ldquoguerrilla-like naturerdquo These indigenous forces were developed into
specialized but irregular units and capabilities all in an effort to defeat the Viet Cong
insurgents and disrupt North Vietnamese main force resupply and movements This was a
shaping effort for the overall US effort and was also overt It consisted of combat
support with Special Forces not only advising but actually commanding and leading
these units
North Vietnam
The Military Assistance Command Vietnam Special Observations Group was
established in 1963 with the task to pick up where the CIA had failed to conduct
249Ibid 120
250Ibid 124
251Ibid 125
102
operations in Laos and North Vietnamrdquo252 The Studies and Observation Group had four
principle covert missions under OPLAN 34A to insert and develop agent networks to
establish a fabricated resistance movement and misinformation campaign to conduct
maritime interdiction along the coast of North Vietnam and to conduct cross border
reconnaissance operations in Laos253 While considered the largest covert unconventional
warfare program since World War II the eight-year program from 1964 to 1972 had
mixed results At one end of the spectrum were the five hundred agents that upon
infiltration were neutralized or turned by the North to the successes in 1968 when the
North Vietnamese government began to fear the growing subversion However the US
policy makers feared a destabilized North Vietnamese government and for all intents and
purposes shut the programs in North Vietnam down once the Hanoi had been persuaded
to begin negotiations254 The most interesting aspect of this program was the use of
deception to make the North think a resistance was active The most noteworthy of these
efforts were the kidnapping of North Vietnamese citizens and exposing them to the fake
resistance organization known as the Sacred Sword of the Patriots League then returning
them to report to the information to their government
This was a covert unconventional warfare program and strategic shaping
operation While it was unsuccessful establishing an actual resistance the Sacred Sword
of the Patriots League was an interesting method that qualifies as an example of indirect
252Shultz xiii
253Ibid x-xi
254Ibid 330-331
103
support by using North Vietnamese citizens to unwittingly spread the rumor of the fake
resistance organization
El Salvador
Special Forces operations in El Salvador were a successful example of foreign
internal defense to help the military defeat the FMLN While this was an exceptional
example of how Special Forces could conduct foreign internal defense in direct support
to the El Salvadoran military it is routinely called an unconventional warfare operation
In fact it is identified this way in the manual that governs Special Forces operations FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations The FM 3-0520 explains
[Special Forces] operations in El Salvador during the 1980s are an example of [unconventional warfare as the decisive operation] In this instance [unconventional warfare] operations are conducted during what would appear to all but the [unconventional warfare] participants to be operations to promote peace never progressing through operations to deter aggression and resolve conflict or actual combat255
US direct support foreign internal defense was provided to El Salvador after a rocky
period of diplomatic engagement in which the US cut off economic and military aid due
to El Salvadorrsquos ruthless counterinsurgency operations against the FMLN which included
extensive human rights violations In early 1981 the FMLN had a nearly ten thousand-
man army poised and ready to overthrow the government until President Carter chose the
lesser of two evils and lifted the economic and military sanctions which turned the tide
255FM 3-0520 2-4
104
and allowed El Salvador to thwart the insurgents When President Reagan came into
office he was much more aggressive in his desire to thwart communist expansion 256
While other economic aid was being provided the US military group was allowed
by Congress to have a total of fifty-five personnel assigned to train equip and advise a
military that initially numbered around 12000 and would grow to nearly forty-two
thousand troops over a four year period257 The Special Forces advisors were part of the
Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams (OPATT) were also
restricted from conducting any direct combat operations Each OPATT team consisted of
three individuals assigned to a brigade which it was hoped would lead to better human
rights behavior and combat employment258 As Cecil Bailey highlights ldquoFor nearly eight
years OPATTS cycled through the brigades each one extending the progress of the
proceeding teamrdquo259 The three-man teams generally consisted of ldquoa combat-arms major
preferably with an [Special Forces] background and two [Special Forces nonshy
commissioned officers] or warrant officerrdquo260
The OPATTS were also not allowed to conduct combat operations with their
counter parts As Cecil Bailey notes lsquoThe restrictions against US military members
accompanying units on operations was especially onerous to the advisors who often
256James S Corum and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003) 329
257Ibid 333
258Cecil E Bailey ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
259Ibid
260Ibid 21
105
cited the restriction as affecting not only their relationship with their counterpart but also
their professional credibilityrdquo261 Cecil Bailey highlights the accomplishment of the
OPATTs ldquoContemporary studies evaluating the US military role in El Salvador often
praise the brigade advisers as being the leading contributors to combat effectiveness
improved human rights performance and professional behavior supporting constitutional
democratic valuesrdquo Considering that a few more than 140 Special Forces OPATT
advisors were employed during this conflict from 1985 to 1992 and were able to advise
forty battalions 40000 soldiers is impressive262 The best measure of effectiveness of
this foreign internal defense program comes from an FMLN commander Joaquin
Villallobosrsquo when he explained that ldquoputting American advisers in the brigades was the
most damaging thing that happened to them during the war He believed that the
adviserrsquos influence on the [El Salvadoran military] made them more professional and less
abusive [denying the FMLN] much of its earlier propaganda advantage and
recruiting appealrdquo263
Analysis of this conflict clearly shows that this was not unconventional warfare
but instead foreign internal defense conducted overtly and in direct support to the El
Salvadoran military although years later it would become clear that many of these
advisers were conducting combat advisory missions as well The OPATT advisory
program was the only military program conducted with no other conventional military
units participating thus making this a decisive operation
261Ibid 24
262Ibid 28
263Ibid 27
106
Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan
The operations in Afghanistan after 11 September provide a window into the
future of unconventional warfare The DOD had not been involved in an unconventional
warfare campaign of this magnitude since the Korean War The interoperability between
the CIA and special operations was unprecedented as well The preparation phase
happened from the moments after 11 September until the first CIA elements began to
infiltrate into Afghanistan which included political preparations for coalition support and
assistance with airfields and over flight rights as well as preparing the international
community and the American population for the armed response to 11 September The
CIA then established initial contact or reestablishing contacts from previous efforts in
Afghanistan Due to the compressed time schedule numerous Special Forces Operational
Detachment-Alphas infiltrated concurrently with the CIA paramilitary teams and rapidly
organized built-up and employed their Afghan counterparts264 The Special Forces and
CIA paramilitary worked in concert The Special Forces employed the Afghans guerrillas
in concert with US airpower to produce overwhelming combat power that outmatched the
Taliban At the same time the CIA subverted the Taliban by turning many of the
Talibanrsquos units through fear of destruction or through other incentives the most popular
being monetary ldquorewardsrdquo for changing sides Buying loyalty brought a whole new
meaning to the often used ldquoby with and throughrdquo is literally ldquoBUY with and throughrdquo
The Taliban was overthrown in less than two months with the interim
government of Hamid Karzai being established in mid-December This marked the shift
264CPT (now Major) Glenn Thomas conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
107
from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense as efforts transitioned to protect
the new government and its legitimacy over the coming months while at the same time
developing an internal security capability to disrupt or defeat future Taliban and Al
Qarsquoida threats This effort continues today
Until the transition this was initially a clandestine effort to infiltrate into
Afghanistan then transitioned to low-visibility operations The Special Forces
unconventional warfare operations became a decisive operation although this was not the
original plan in which they were to support the introduction of conventional forces This
was also an example of the first large-scale unconventional warfare operation utilizing
Special Forces in combat advisory approach since the OSS operations in World War II
The Afghans were not demobilized to a large extent but instead were used for
some time as militias supporting the Special Forces until they were transferred to national
control or sent home Later in the foreign internal defense operations the remaining
militias were replaced by Afghan Army units and finally disbanded or demobilized but
unlike the doctrinal seventh phase demobilization this took place sometime after the
conflict ended Once the conflict transitioned to the postconflict and unconventional
warfare transitioned to foreign internal defense the signature became overt and all
efforts by Special Forces became a supporting effort to the larger conventional
headquarters The operational approach had remained combat support with the goal
being to return to peacetime engagement and only a direct or indirect operational
approach necessary
108
Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines
Operations in the Philippines after 11 September were another component of
Operation Enduring Freedom campaign Referred to as Operations Enduring Freedom-
Philippines the mission was to support the Philippine governmentrsquos counterinsurgency or
counterterrorism efforts to defeat the Abu Sayyaf an extremist-Islamic insurgent group
with ties to Al Qarsquoida Although a classic foreign internal defense mission the actual
mission statement for the post-11 September counterinsurgency operations in the
Philippines uses unconventional warfare as the operational term
On order in support of Operation Freedom Eagle FOB 11 conduct[s] [unconventional warfare] operations in the southern Philippines through by and with the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] to assist the GRP [Government of the Republic of the Philippines] in the destruction of terrorist organizations and separate the population from those Groupsrdquo265
In this definition the correct operational task should have been foreign internal defense or
even counterterrorism not unconventional warfare This mission statement also did not
help the Philippine government that was telling its citizens that the Special Forces were in
the Philippines conducting counterinsurgency training which it called ldquoExercise
Balikatanrdquo which means shoulder to shoulder Because of the negative political
implications for the elected Philippine government they imposed a US force cap limiting
the number of American personnel involved to six hundred266
To date this foreign internal defense operation has been extremely successful
having forced Abu Sayyaf from the Basilan Island and operations continue to defeat this
265Dr C H Briscoe ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
266Robert D Kaplan Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground (New York NY Random House 2005) 146
109
organization while training the Philippine Army to conduct effective counterinsurgency
operations against the other insurgent groups that are a continued threat to the
government Despite the use of unconventional warfare in the original mission statement
this effort has been a classic overt foreign internal defense mission Since there is no
other US military effort in the country it is the decisive operations at the operational-
level and a shaping operation in the larger context of the Global War on Terror Unlike
the operations in Afghanistan the operational approach in the Philippines is direct
support
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operations with the Kurdish resistance organization in Northern Iraq provide an
excellent example of unconventional warfare supporting conventional maneuver forces It
is even more spectacular that an American Special Forces Group in this case 10th
Special Forces Group (Airborne) numbering 5200 personnel (and not all of these were
inside of Northern Iraq) was able to coordinate the efforts of over fifty thousand Kurdish
Peshmerga fighters and to succeed in fixing thirteen of Saddam Husseinrsquos twenty
divisions along a 350-kilometer front267 Also of interest is the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistanrsquos division-sized attack to regain occupied salient along the border of Iran
which was controlled by the Al Qarsquoida affiliated group called Ansar al Islam The
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan were supported by a Special Forces Company working as
advisors to coordinate indirect fires and close air support
267Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Linda Robinson Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces (New York NY Public Affairs 2004) 299
110
From the night of infiltration the longest since World War II into Northern Iraq
the timeline was once again compressed and Special Forces detachments began to engage
the Iraqirsquos along the forward line of troops known as the green-line268 Combat
operations started quickly because the Kurdish resistance was already a large well-
organized insurgent organization that had been working with the CIA for decades and
only needed minimal training in the lethal aid that was provided by the US269 Although
combat operations along the green-line began within hours of the infiltration the first
major event was the attack on Ansar al Islam which began the morning of 28 March
2003 This two day attack saw Ansar al Islam routed and the Kurdish Peshmerga able to
liberate this salient Once this threat was eliminated the focus turned to the green-line
Ten days later Kirkuk and Mosul fell and operations in the North transitioned to what
seemed like postconflict stabilization Special Forces had successfully conducted the
second unconventional warfare operations in less than two years270 One other lesson of
this conflict was the unprecedented work that Special Forces conducted in concert with
the Kurdish underground Most of the Special Forcesrsquo doctrine is focused on ldquoguerrilla
warfarerdquo versus the clandestine arts of working with undergrounds
It is also interesting to note that 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) was unable
to develop a similar capability with Shia in Southern Iraq However unlike the Kurds the
Shia did not have a self-governed sanctuary like the Kurds and were heavily oppressed
268Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq
269Robert Baer See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism (New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001) 171-213
270Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq
111
by the Iraqi regime A final unconventional warfare effort was attempted using Iraqi ex-
patriots who received only rudimentary training prior to being inserted into Iraq
generally called the Free Iraqi Force271 Part of this force had been trained by the
conventional Army in Hungry prior to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Elements of 5th Special Forces Group were given the task to advise the Free Iraqi Forces
but the general sense among those involved was that the these Iraqis did not have the
training nor did the Special Forces advisors have the relationships with these
counterparts to be an effective force This was an example of a good idea gone bad in
many respects Had Special Forces trained these elements developed strong relationships
with their counterparts and then been inserted with them into Iraq as part of the overall
plan their effectiveness as a political tool might have been increased272
The Special Forces would then be called upon to continue the hunt for former
regime elements At the same time they began to train and operate with the 36th
Commandos These operations were successful but the growing insurgency was not
addressed until it had already grown exponentially Special Forces did everything in its
power to keep from conducting advisory support and were finally let of the hook when
271Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Robinson 275 Some confusion rings the FIF which was used to describe two groups of Iraqi ex-patriots one that was trained in civil affairs in Hungary and another element of soldiers Because they were all commonly referred to as FIF this is the convention that is used here
272Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and numerous discussions with individuals involved with this mission in Southern Iraq from August 2004 to the May 2006 and Robinson 299
112
the conventional military out of necessity established the Multi-National Security
Transition Command-Iraq273
Operations in Iraq had once again proven the usefulness of unconventional
warfare and at the same the limitations In the north during the first few days after
infiltration the Special Forces were operating clandestinely until major combat
operations in the north began This was an example of unconventional warfare shaping
the environment for the conventional decisive operation using combat advisors and
support including coordinated air interdiction Finally there was no demobilization of
Kurdish resistance members by Special Forces however there were inquiries into the
demobilization plan for each of the Kurdish factions274 It became quickly evident that
this was a task of enormous size when the current militias may be needed in the future
Because of this these elements were not demobilized but continued to operate as militias
in support of US Special Forces teams conducting foreign internal defense275
In the south efforts failed to generate a resistance force first because of the preshy
existing constraints on the Shia and second the warrsquos tempo was so fast the requirements
for an unconventional warfare effort to support the invasion were overcome by events
The Free Iraqi Forces were another element of the unconventional warfare puzzle in Iraq
but their contribution even politically was less than stellar Had the correct amount of
273Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) Available from httpwwwmnstci iraqcentcommilmissionhtm Internet accessed on 29 September 2004
274Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq April 2003
275Ibid
113
time energy and Special Forces advisors been elements of this program it might have
been more successful
Summary
The history of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense whether overt
or covert provides an interesting backdrop to the argument of whether these two
missions continue to be viable today and into the future Fifty years after the birth of
Special Forces and before the events of 11 September the decision was made that
unconventional warfare as defined by the Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann was no
longer a viable mission and would never be conducted as envisioned Less than three
years later Special Forces has successfully prosecuted two unconventional warfare
campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan using indigenous forces
instead of massive conventional formations and the other a shaping operation in northern
Iraq using the indigenous Kurds However despite these successes the current debate
focuses on the use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense against non-
state actors in a short-sighted version of the previous fifty year argument
114
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS
With an understanding of the historical background of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine this chapter will answer the secondary questions
What is unconventional warfare What is foreign internal defense and How are they
related Also this chapter will determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are applicable against non-state actors the final tertiary question The
combination of these answers will set the conditions to the answer the primary research
question in chapter 5 are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense as
currently defined applicable to current and future Special Forces operations
To answer these questions a comparison must be made between the results of the
last chapter the historical application of these two missions and their current definitions
The analysis will determine if there is a relationship between the two missions and will
conclude with the future of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
special emphasis on their application in the Global War on Terrorism and against non-
state actors
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare
Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition
In introducing this problem unconventional warfare was defined in chapter 1 to
provide the reader a point of departure for determining if the definition adequately
captured the historical application of unconventional warfare Once again the definition
of unconventional warfare is
115
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion276
An analysis of this definition provides some interesting findings when applied to the
historical examples presented in the previous chapter First the definition is correct that
these are ldquomilitary and paramilitary operationsrdquo They are military operations in that
unconventional warfare is used as an armed tool in place of conventional military
operations or to support other conventional operations
Second it is true that most of these operations have been of long duration
however the length of the operation is dependent on three factors first and foremost is
how much risk the political leadership is willing to take by putting Special Forces
soldiers into the target country earlier than declared hostilities to build an effective
insurgent force second if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or if
it is a shaping operation If it is the decisive operation then it will generally take longer
but if it is a shaping operation the length of time historically has been shorter While
historical examples may show that shaping operations are shorter operations such as the
Jedburghs and more recently 10th Group in Northern Iraq would have been more
effective if infiltration had occurred earlier The two contemporary examples of
unconventional warfare Afghanistan and Iraq validate this theory Afghanistan taking
longer because the unconventional warfare effort was the decisive operation so from
infiltration of teams in early October it took until mid-December to overthrow the
276JP 1-02
116
Taliban In Iraq unconventional and conventional operations started at the same time
with the Special Forces having very little time to organize or build up forces and within
three weeks the Coalition had successfully overthrown a much tougher opponent
Saddam Hussein
Based on current and proposed operational concepts which suggest the US
military can successfully defeat a country like Iraq in days versus weeks unconventional
warfare that begins concurrently with combat operations would not be viable as the
unconventional warfare effort in Southern Iraq demonstrate277 In this concept it will be
imperative to begin unconventional warfare months or weeks earlier than the planned
invasion The final conclusion to be drawn from this is that a time standard on this type of
operation may not be of use any longer however there are serious repercussions for not
giving Special Forces the time required to build an effective insurgency or resistance
Third unconventional warfare encompasses organizing training equipping
supporting and directing of the indigenous insurgent organization Each of these
elements are tasks in and of themselves that can be done indirectly directly or in combat
support roles They could be done indirectly such as conducting all of these tasks in a
third-party country or even through a third-party organization or front Examples of the
direct method may include conducting all these tasks in liberated sanctuary or safe areas
that do not include combat Obviously combat support would involve these tasks being
conducted while in a combat environment with the Special Forces or supporting agency
taking the same risks as the insurgents
277Brigadier General David Fastabend ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo (briefing slides for Joint Forces Command 12 April 2004) slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquo
117
Fourth one often missed component of the definition is the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo
This means that this is not a US-only definition but applies universally In other words
the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo could be Iran Syria China Cuba North Korea and even al Qarsquoida
not just the US In fact Abu Musab al-Zarqawirsquos operations in Iraq are nothing more than
an al Qarsquoida ldquoSpecial Forcesrdquo advisors conducting unconventional warfare by providing
training advising funding and a form of precision targeting--the suicide bomber--to the
Sunni insurgents278 Although not part of the definition this also highlights the
requirement to define the type of external support provided indirect direct and combat
in much the same way foreign internal defense support is described279
Fifth the definition attempts to capture all of the oddities of unconventional
warfare including the tactics--guerrilla warfare subversion and sabotage as well as the
environments and signatures of these operations--direct offensive low visibility covert
or clandestine The final part of the definition discusses ldquointelligence gatheringrdquo and
ldquoescape and evasionrdquo However these two elements apply to every Special Forces
mission and are not unconventional warfare specific This has led to the confusion of
skills versus missions the most notable being Advanced Special Operations Techniques
which are advanced skills that apply to all Special Forces missions and therefore cannot
be a mission in itself
278Major D Jones ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo (5 February 2005) scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
279Major (now Lieutenant Colonel) Mark Grdovic Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
118
Lastly the definition fails to capture the essence or purpose of unconventional
warfare--that it is the support to an insurgency Joint Publication 1-02 defines support to
insurgency as the ldquosupport provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of
a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflictrdquo280 This
definition clearly defines the purpose of unconventional warfare in much the same way
the foreign internal defense definition provides a purpose--to help another country free
and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency The purpose is
important as Hy S Rothstein shows because the lack of purpose may be the entire reason
for the confusion about unconventional warfare
Unfortunately the purpose of unconventional warfare is not so easily defined Certainly it must serve the national interests of the United States However there is no clear task so easily defined as the ldquodestruction of the enemy armyrdquo and no method so easily specified as ldquothe direct application of violent forcerdquo Consequently the basic questions about unconventional war have never been adequately answered281
While Hy Rothstein is correct in that the purpose and task is not defined in the definition
if the definition is taken in the context of the unconventional warfare doctrine then they
are readily apparent the task is to support an insurgency against a hostile regime or
occupier and the purpose is to overthrow the regime or remove the occupier Addressing
the task and purpose as outlined here may clear up the misunderstanding of the definition
280JP 1-02
281Hy S Rothstein Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare (Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006) 21
119
Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare
There are seven phases of US-sponsored insurgency the military definition being
unconventional warfare The seven phases are preparation initial contact infiltration
organization buildup combat employment and demobilization282 There have been
arguments as recently as 2001 by senior Special Forces leaders that the seven-phased
unconventional warfare model is no longer valid However based on the most recent
operations the seven-phased model is extremely accurate in describing the support to the
insurgency although the phases may have been compressed by the same circumstances
that affected Jedburgh operations in France--Special Forces were not infiltrated into the
sector until conventional combat operations were already underway283
Phase I of unconventional warfare ldquopreparationrdquo includes the decision to use
military force against a threatening nation the planning and the preparations for its use
and the psychological preparations of the threatening nationrsquos population the
international community and the American public284 Some confusion exists with respect
to another operational term operational preparation of the environment which is easily
confused with this phase of unconventional warfare Thomas OrsquoConnell DOD Assistant
Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict provides some insight into
what operational preparation of the environment is and is not during an interview with
282Department of the Army Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations (Washington DC Department of the Army April 2003) 1-11 to 1-17
283Kershner 2-2
284FM 3-05201 1-11
120
Linda Robinson ldquoItrsquos becoming familiar with the area in which you might have to
work Itrsquos nonhostile recon Itrsquos not intrusive Others without military background
may view it as saber rattling but itrsquos as far from that as you can getrdquo285 Linda Robinson
continues ldquoIn the 1980rsquos OrsquoConnell said special operations forces spent lots of time
preparing to respond to hijackings kidnappings and takeovers of embassies To do that
they visited embassies and airports and examined possible helicopter landing zones and
assault zonesrdquo286
An example of the residual confusion can be found in an article by Colonel
Walter Herd ldquoIn war fighting if your fighting by with amp [sic] through indigenous forces
or if yoursquore collecting intelligence and conducting operational preparation of the
environment by with and through indigenous forces your conducting unconventional
warfarerdquo287 This confusion is politically sensitive in terms of how another nation may
define unconventional warfare If they define it as support to an insurgency then
obviously just conducting operational preparation of the environment if it is mistaken for
the first phase of unconventional warfare could have grave repercussions much like the
mistaken unconventional warfare mission statement during Operation Enduring Freedom-
Philippines discussed in the previous chapter Thomas OrsquoConnell is correct when he
stipulates that operational preparation of the environment can apply to any special
285Linda Robinson ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet accessed on 12 May 2006
286Ibid
287Colonel Walter Herd ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service (13 June 2005) available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet accessed on 12 May 06
121
operations mission from counterterrorism to counterproliferation With respect to
unconventional warfare it may allow long-term relationships with host nation partners to
develop just like they do during normal foreign internal defense training missions that
may ease the initial contact phase of unconventional warfare if that were ever necessary
An example of this relationship--US Special Forces conducted foreign internal
defense in a country then for some reason the government was overthrown and these
former military personnel that had worked with the Special Forces are now the cadre of
the insurgency In fact due to vast number of coalition operations and combined training
exercises the long-term relationships that are developing throughout the world may
change the nature of the second phase--initial contact Instead of initial contact it may be
reminiscent of the CIA contacting former associates in Afghanistan or in Northern Iraq
about a new endeavor--overthrowing the current regime
Phase II ldquoinitial contactrdquo was originally in the CIA charter288 The purpose of
this phase is to conduct ldquoan accurate assessment of the potential resistance and
[arrange] for the reception and initial assistancerdquo of the US operational elements that will
be infiltrated during the next phase289 This is generally a covert or clandestine activity
normally conducted in one of two ways First of all this initial contact is likely to be the
first time that a representative of the US government contacts or approaches an insurgent
organization that has only recently emerged or has never been contacted by the US
before This could be due to any number of reasons such as political or geographic
isolation The second type of approach the inherently easier of the two is with a
288FM 3-05201 1-12 and Bank 160-2 173
289FM 3-05201 1-14
122
previously contacted group that is now in a position of influence that the US would like
to capitalize on to further US national interests Although in contact with US
representatives prior to this time in Phase II this group is being asked for the first time to
work with the US in an unconventional warfare campaign to overthrow the regime As
explained in the description of Phase I having contacts with numerous groups throughout
the world greatly benefits the US and increased the speed of response in a crisis Also
during this phase if the security environment is high risk for US personnel resistance
personnel could be exfiltrated trained in a third party country and when ready inserted
as the only operational element that will infiltrate in phase III--infiltration--instead of US
operational elements
Phase III ldquoinfiltrationrdquo is the entry of the first DOD operational elements into the
insurgentsrsquo areas and has been the doctrinal hand-off between the other governmental
agencies and Special Forces290 This will be the first significant presence in theater
which may now include forward operational bases or other command control or logistics
nodes supporting the committed operational forces In indirect approaches this may not
be the infiltration of US operational elements but newly trained indigenous operational
assets
Phase IV ldquoorganizationrdquo ensures that the indigenous forces are effectively
organized for the buildup phase Phase V291 This has historically included in-processing
issuing weapons pay oaths to the future government and medical screenings However
290FM 3-05201 1-15 3-1 2 and Banks 172-175 and John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
291FM 3-05201 1-15
123
this process has been much more difficult to accomplish in the compressed timelines and
large numbers of insurgents to in-process during the last two unconventional warfare
efforts The concept is sound and protects US interests by providing a record of what
training was conducted and weapons were issued It also provides a means of providing
the emerging government some records of those with training that could work as militias
or conventional soldiers The end state of this phase is an insurgent force that is organized
by function and mission capable of growth if necessary and with the appropriate
command and control structures in place
Phase V ldquobuild-uprdquo is the growth of the insurgency The operational elements
must balance the assigned mission with security and logistical support capability In
insurgency it is not the size that matters but effects and survivability Therefore the size
of the insurgent force is not based on preconceived end strength but on three aspects
effect that needs to be generated for mission accomplishment the constraints of the
security environment and the logistical constraints292 In a less security-constrained
environment with freedom of movement such as liberated areas or sanctuary areas then
larger forces can be organized and built-up In a constrained security environment for
example urban areas smaller cellular networks are used for security and survivability
The last aspect of build-up is the ability of the area to support an insurgent organization
In rural or agrarian societies that mass produce food then the population will be able to
logistically support a larger insurgent group In a constrained environment such as a city
292Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) 1-4 to 1-5
124
or if the counterinsurgency forces have implemented rationing then the area is going to
be less capable to support a movement larger than a small cell
Phase VI ldquocombat employmentrdquo begins with the offensive air or ground
campaign by conventional forces or if purely an unconventional warfare campaign such
as Afghanistan a Special Forces and indigenous ground campaign293 The insurgents will
conduct operations either until link-up with conventional forces or the defeat of the
government or occupying forces leading to the eventual take over of the country If the
insurgents are unable to gain victory or control of the environment they may be forced
into one of the following options (1) conduct a retreat withdrawal or delaying action to
trade space for time (2) disperse into small cells and hide within the population or
restricted terrain (3) establish a defense in restricted terrain if a larger force to regroup
reorganize and prepare for further offensive operations or (4) withdraw to sanctuary
areas which may be in an adjoining country The worst case would be for the insurgents
to be decisively engaged and destroyed
Phase VII ldquodemobilizationrdquo has historically meant disarming and disbanding the
insurgentsrsquo overt military forces such as guerrillas and returning them to their pre-crisis
place in society However if the experiences since 11 September are an indicator in the
future the majority of insurgent forces will transition to local militias and general-purpose
forces in preparation for establishing a secure environment until national police and
military forces can take over this role entirely At such a time as a nation-wide security
force is employed then the remaining ldquomilitiasrdquo or ldquoirregularsrdquo will be demobilized by
their government Historically US unconventional warfare efforts have ended in three
293FM 3-05201 1-17 3-1
125
ways demobilization termination of support with no demobilization and recently in
Iraq and Afghanistan the insurgent forces have become local militias and in some cases
national forces and are not actually demobilized until well into foreign internal defense
operations Because of these three possible outcomes ldquodemobilizationrdquo may not be the
best description of this phase Even in the unconventional warfare doctrinal manual FM
3-05201 demobilization is said to be a ldquomajor activity of transitionrdquo294 ldquoTransitionrdquo is a
much more accurate term than demobilization
Foreign Internal Defense
Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition
Interestingly the epitome of a clear definition is Foreign Internal Defense JP 1shy
02 defines Foreign Internal Defense as ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of
a government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo295 JP 3-071 Joint
Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes
Foreign Internal Defense into three types of support indirect direct (not involving
combat operations) and combat support296 As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories
represent significantly different levels of US diplomatic and military commitment and
riskrdquo297
294Ibid 4-2 295JP 1-02
296Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
297Ibid I-4 126
There is also some debate if Special Forces conduct foreign internal defense or
instead conduct a lesser operation under foreign internal defense such as
counterinsurgency or training since this is an overarching term for a myriad of
interagency programs that span all the elements of a supporting nationrsquos national
power298 The argument is valid although the clarity of this operation comes from the
part of the definition that states the conditions to be met ldquoto free or protect its society
from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo This portion of the definition is the
driving factor behind efforts of Special Forces The fact that this effort takes an
interagency effort supporting another governmentrsquos internal defense and development
plan provides context to the solution which is important in this day of the military
assuming a heavy burden in Iraq and Afghanistan A similar argument could be made
with respect to counterinsurgency and if the US actually conducts this operation or only
supports another countryrsquos counterinsurgency efforts However if insurgency is an
overarching term for any type of armed resistance aimed at either the overthrow of a
government or the removal of an occupying power then there are instances such as Iraq
where the initial counterinsurgency efforts may be a unilateral US effort or as a coalition
As the new government is established the operational approach begins to shift from
combat support In efforts such as the Philippines the effort is direct support to help the
host nation defeat an internal threat while meeting US national objectives of defeating al
Qarsquoida associated networks
298LTC (retired) Mark Lauber Multiple discussion with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
127
So although debate may exist about the role of Special Forces in foreign internal
defense the definition is clear where the unconventional warfare definition is not in the
condition or end-state of the operation The foreign internal defense doctrine also
provides the three levels of support which further clarifies the types of support provided
These two elements may be the solution for clarifying the unconventional warfare
definition
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Although it is easy to understand that unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are different and likely opposite in their end states considering the historical
background presented in the last chapter it is difficult to tie this directly to why words
matter Some may say that as long as the Special Forces operators understands what they
are supposed to be doing on the ground at the tactical level everything else will fall in
place However this argument is much more fundamental than it would seem Regardless
of the similarities in tactics techniques and procedures at the tactical level it is the end
state that matters most Iraq provides a good example of this concept Abu Musab
Zarqawi beheaded prisoners while videotaping the brutal execution and received
relatively minor international reaction Compare this to the global reaction and
international outcry when the US soldiers humiliated the prisoners at Abu Ghriab prison
Although the actions of the US soldiers were extremely unprofessional and an
embarrassment to the US the prisoners did not die horrendous deaths The beheading de-
legitimized the US and Iraqi efforts because it added to the sense of insecurity and
violence and appealed to younger members of the Muslim society that were prone to
128
jihadi-propaganda At the same time the acts of the US soldiers de-legitimized the US
and Iraqi efforts by completely countering the US information operationrsquos efforts to
portray the US as a liberator The US wanted to show how the US was freeing the Iraqis
from the oppression of Saddam yet the Iraqi citizens were being mistreated by their so-
called liberators Had the soldiers understood the concept of legitimacy and that every
one of their actions either helped or hurt the US and the fledgling Iraqi governmentrsquos
legitimacy and with it the chances of success they may not have made these mistakes
The same can be said of US militaryrsquos preference for kinetic effects versus
nonkinetics in counterinsurgency Had the US military understood from the beginning of
the postconflict phase that legitimacy was the most important commodity for US efforts
then ldquocordon and searchrdquo would have been replaced with the ldquocordon and knockrdquo early in
the conflict Instead this concept took nearly two years to be implemented across Iraq
While these are not specifically Special Forces examples they are used here since the
background knowledge is more widely known
Logical Lines of Operations
One method for clarifying the relationship between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense is a logical lines of operation comparison Logical lines of
operations are defined by Dr Jack D Kem as ldquoa cognitive operational framework
planning construct used to define the concept of multiple and often disparate actions
arranged in a framework unified by purpose All logical lines of operation should lead
129
to the [Center of Gravity or COG]rdquo299 In the following examples the short title for the
logical line of operation is labeled and the operational objectives the conditions decisive
points or effects that must be met along that line are defined by boxed number at the
bottom of the chart The corresponding numbered boxes are then placed on the lines of
operations which they support As Dr Kem explains ldquo[operational] objectives in a logical
line of operation depict causal relationships that are both linear and nonlinear
Operational objectives are depicted along a logical line of operation the same operational
objectives may be depicted along more than one logical line of operationrdquo300
While both of the lines of operation charts provide large number of operational
objectives boxes or circles and their corresponding numbers it should be noted that the
actual objectives chosen will depend on the operational considerations--environment
signature relationship and approach In fact some of the objectives could become lines
of operations of their own especially as these lines of operations are translated into
mission orders for subordinate units It should also be noted that the following lines of
operations are for the most part military lines of operations and support or are supported
by the interagency and the conventional military lines of operations across the elements
of national power--diplomatic informational military and economic--when appropriate
Finally because information operations are so important to this type of warfare they are
integral to every objective and therefore there is not an additional information operation
line of operation
299Dr Jack D Kem Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade (Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd) 34-35
300Ibid
130
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 2 provides an example of the logical lines of operation for unconventional
warfare The diagram captures all of the operational considerations-environment
signature relationship and approach and the logical lines of operation The operational
considerations have a significant effect on how the operational objectives are reached
For example one operational objective might be to organize an indigenous resistance
How this is done depends on the environment and the constraints of the operational
signature So in a covert operation conducted in a hostile environment a direct or combat
approach may be used However under the same considerations but in a denied area
where US personnel cannot penetrate the security environment indigenous personnel
may have to be trained in an adjacent country and then reinserted into the operational
area
131
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines
The logical lines shown in figure 2 are examples of the types of Special Forces
specific logical lines of operation along upon which they would apply their
unconventional warfare advising training and equipping capabilities and skills In this
example the logical lines of operation and the longer descriptions are
132
1 Gain Popular Support US advisors ensure that all operations take into
consideration the population Operations are also conducted to show the ineptitude of the
government and its failings to protect the population and its basic needs which would
include attacks on governmental infrastructure
2 Gain International Support Actions must also take into consideration the
international community One of the key elements of this effort is the insurgentrsquos ability
to adhere to the laws of land warfare in order to gain belligerent status throughout the
conflict Other factors include highlighting the governments or occupiers excessive use of
force or human rights violations
3 Develop Insurgent Infrastructure Organize and employ operational
intelligence logistics and political infrastructure infiltrate government agencies develop
capabilities tied to the desired effect provide lethal and nonlethal support
4 Defeat Government forces (or the occupying forces) This is done either
physically or psychologically by attacking the security forces center of gravity and
critical vulnerabilities and capabilities while protecting the insurgent force and US effort
support Coalition land forces during invasion if conducting shaping operations
5 Prepared for Postconflict The insurgents with the help of the US begin to
develop the long-range plans on preparing the environment for the postconflict phases by
establishing underground or shadow governments from the local to national level
identifying the personnel that will take over the key government positions at the
transition secure or protect key infrastructure and psychologically prepare the
population for the transition
133
6 Shape for the Combined Forces Land Component Commander When
unconventional warfare is a shaping operation for a larger conventional decisive
operations then the insurgents set the conditions such as forcing the continued
commitment of forces to rear area security providing intelligence and guides
establishing downed aircrew networks and seizing or securing limited objectives
In this case the center of gravity is the population The unconventional warfare
end state would be the de-legitimized hostile government or an occupying power
overthrown and conditions set for the establishment and protection of a new government
Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis provide a good
example of the logical lines of operation in foreign internal defense information
operations security operations development of security forces reestablishing essential
service developing government infrastructure and promoting economic growth301 All of
the logical lines of operation are aimed at the center of gravity--the people Like the
insurgents the government must gain and maintain its legitimacy from the people The
foreign internal defense end state is a ldquosecure and stable environment maintained by
indigenous forces under the direction of a legitimate national government that is
freely elected and accepts economic pluralismrdquo302
301Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
302Ibid
134
Figure 3 provides another example of possible logical lines of operations again
related to Special Forces foreign internal defense capabilities They are
1 Security Operations The first priority for any government facing an insurgency
is to establish a secure environment through population control measure offensive
operations such as search and attack cordon and search or cordon and knock to deny the
insurgentsrsquo access to the population and freedom of movement
2 Gain Popular Support Gaining and maintaining the support of the population is
the overall goal and path to victory since the population is the center of gravity therefore
it is imperative for long-term success that the population views the government as
legitimate It is equally important for the US effort to be viewed as legitimate versus
being viewed as an occupier or supporting a puppet government
3 Gain International Support It is also important for the governmentrsquos internal
defense efforts to be legitimized accepted and supported by the international community
To be successful most governments will rely on the international community to provide
economic aid or relief of debt and moral support
4 Defeat Insurgents If done correctly the first three lines should de-legitimize
the insurgents and lead to their lasting defeat This line will attack the hard-core
insurgents Some may succumb to offers of amnesty but most will need to be killed or
captured through offensive operations
5 Develop Host Nation Internal Security Internal security forces such as local
and national police forces key facility protection corps diplomat security personnel
coast guard criminal investigation paramilitary forces for counterinsurgency local and
national level special weapons and tactics capabilities will be necessary to defeat the
135
internal threat as a law enforcement matter The coalition forces will provide security for
the entire country Then as the internal security forces are trained the coalition will
transition to only protecting the nation from external threats until such a time as the
actual national military force is trained equipped and can conduct unilateral operations
As in the unconventional warfare model the population is once again the center
of gravity The end state is a legitimate government that the population trusts and is able
to detect and defeat internal and external threats
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation
136
Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 4 now builds on the previous two sections and shows the significance of
the differences between these two operations In the figure the center of gravity is
depicted by the box The sphere floats in this box and its legitimacy is affected by the
success or failures of US support Although both unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are depicted simultaneously only one operation would be conducted at
anyone time against a government Beginning with the unconventional warfare effort on
the left the logical lines of operations affect the legitimacy of the government In a
perfect situation the government is unable to counter this threat and the government loses
legitimacy and ultimately fails leading to the insurgent victory which takes place when
the ldquosphererdquo is dislodged to the right This success can be further enhanced if
conventional forces are added to the equation which in theory will cause a much faster
defeat of the enemy government
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model
137
If on the other hand this is a foreign internal defense mission the US efforts
along the logical lines of operation are aimed at supporting the government and
attempting to defeat or dislocate the insurgency If operations progress well along the
logical lines of operation then the population begins to favor the government pushing
the sphere to the left If done correctly the sphere will continue to move left as the
military in concert with a responsive government provides a secure environment and
will ultimately lead to the separation of the insurgents from the populations Success for
this foreign internal defense is a strong legitimate government capable of identifying and
defeating subversion lawlessness and insurgency on their own
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
There is no discussion in doctrine of a transition between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense In fact the idea that unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are related has never really been articulated In a major operation or
campaign involving conflict and postconflict environments there is an identifiable
transition period between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The
transition between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense happens at the
point when US or Coalition forces have removed the regime and have become the
occupying power or have installed an indigenous governing body even if only for the
interim
US forces had a difficult time identifying that the insurgency was growing
Special Forces understood that something was happening but didnrsquot understand clearly
138
that what was taking place was a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense in both Iraq and Afghanistan Even if they may have suspected that the
transition was taking place finding and neutralizing the top fifty-five of the former
regime in Iraq and senior al Qarsquoida and Taliban leadership in Afghanistan became
priority one This was likely due to the fact that the goal was regime removal but the
order to kill or capture the top fifty-five led to the over-focus on this task by Special
Forces and the other special operations forces
In Iraq more so than Afghanistan the insurgents spent the first two months
establishing their underground or clandestine command control intelligence and lines of
communication networks Once their networks were established and secure then they
began to increase their capability to prosecute terrorism guerrilla warfare and in some
place like Fallujah and An Anbar province a low-level form of mobile warfare having
been able to organize and employ large forces capable of holding terrain for short periods
of time In Afghanistan due to a much smaller population of pro-Taliban and al Qarsquoida
fighters and less urbanized terrain the insurgency has grown much more slowly over the
last five years and will continue to grow at a slower rate By the time that Special Forces
and the conventional military identified a transition to foreign internal defense the
insurgency had already escalated well into the guerrilla warfare stage Had this transition
been identified earlier counterinsurgency operations could have been conducted to
disrupt the insurgentsrsquo clandestine networks before they could be established and the
insurgents could gain the initiative
139
The unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense transition point can be
modeled using ldquothe Staterdquo versus ldquothe Counter-Staterdquo relationship303 The State is the
enemy government or an occupying power The Counter-State would be the insurgent
elements assisted by or in conjunction with US forces The goal is to either remain or
become the State For example the US and its coalition partners including the supported
insurgents are the Counter-State and use military force to overthrow the regime or the
State
The transition point is the point at which the Counter-State successfully defeats
the regime and becomes ldquothe new Staterdquo An important revelation for the new State
happens at the transition point The new State must immediately switch its mindset and
tactics to protect itself in order to now remain the State The transition from the Counter-
State to the State corresponds to the transition between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense as well as the transition between conflict and postconflict
So what happens to ldquothe old Staterdquo At the time the old State becomes the
Counter-State it has two options accept defeat or not If it chooses defeat then the
postconflict nation building will occur more rapidly and with less violence than has been
encountered in Iraq as in the case of Germany and Japan after they were occupied by the
Allies in World War II If the Counter-state does not accept defeat then it begins using
303The State versus Counter-State theory was originally based on a presentation on the relationship between the counterinsurgent and the insurgent by Dr Gordon McCormick US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division presented at the Unconventional Warfare Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC for further discussion of Dr McCormickrsquos ldquoDiamond modelrdquo see Lieutenant Colonel (P) Eric P Wendtrsquos article ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
140
tactics appropriate to its capabilities either political or military or a combination to
regain its State status William Flavin explains these options in his article on conflict
termination ldquoWhen the friendly forces can freely impose their will on the adversary the
opponent may have to accept defeat terminate active hostilities or revert to other types
of conflict such as geopolitical actions or guerrilla warfarerdquo304 The former regime
elements in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are examples of new Counter-States that
have not accepted defeat
The confusion between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
comes much like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan when the US and the Coalition became
the State prior to the end of major combat operations Flavin explains that the transition
point or what he calls conflict termination is ldquothe formal end of fighting not the end of
conflictrdquo305 In Iraq after the regime was defeated combat operations were still ongoing
but inadequate steps were taken to ensure that the US and coalition protected the interim
government and themselves as the State
The fact that Special Forces never positively identified this transition and
continued to conduct what they thought was unconventional warfare versus attempting to
disrupt the budding insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan is important This failure to
identify the shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense had a
detrimental effect on US stabilization operations First the unconventional warfare
mindset focused Special Forcesrsquo continued efforts on hunting former regime elements or
304William Flavin ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet accessed on 24 August 2004
305Ibid
141
on other activities that were tangential or irrelevant to securing the State The mindset
was that the mission was not over until all of the key members of the former regime were
killed or captured In Iraq this focus was provided by the ldquo55-most wantedrdquo deck of
cards In Afghanistan the hunt for Usama bin Laden and his associates continued
unabated with all efforts focused on him
In both cases Special Forces efforts were focused on single individuals with little
regard for other more crucial missions aimed at securing the environment and the State
This allowed the insurgents and the foreign fighters to establish underground elements-shy
command intelligence operational and support networks The establishment of
underground organizations allowed the insurgency to transition from a latent or incipient
phase to the guerrilla warfare phase
The Transition Curve Model
One of the key observations of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is that at
some point in both conflicts the operations shifted from conflict to postconflict and for
Special Forces particularly from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense The
question that arises is where did this ldquoshiftrdquo or ldquotransitionrdquo take place with relation to
time space or effort As shown in figure 5 graphing these operations with respect to
time and overall US effort including unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
operations a pattern emerges that models what would be the ldquobest caserdquo scenario--a nice
clean bell curve that goes from minimal US effort and Special Forces presence in the
peacetime engagement phases and begins to rise as the decision is made to use military
force to overthrow or defeat another government At the decisive point the conflict phase
has been successful and the enemy government is defeated which signifies the shift from 142
conflict to postconflict This model provides a framework for mapping progress and for
planning campaigns
The Transition Curve (see figure 5) was originally developed to model Special
Forcesrsquo participation in full spectrum operations focused first on the seven phases of US-
sponsored unconventional warfare second on the identification of the conflict
termination point which marks the transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense and finally to model a nine-phased foreign internal defense operation
and the eventual return to peacetime engagement306 The graph was developed to correct
the doctrinal misunderstanding surrounding the Special Forces missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan307 The transition point draws a distinct line between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense to reduce confusion
306The nine-phased foreign internal defense model was developed by the author based on his experience in Kosovo to capture the salient steps that must take place to return to prewar levels and peacetime engagement For this study they will only be referred in general terms
307The author developed the graph as an instructor at the Special Forces Detachment Officer Qualification course in September of 2003
143
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model
144
The unconventional warfare phases are the same as discussed above although
ldquotransitionrdquo has been substituted for demobilization For this study a non-doctrinalshy
phased foreign internal defense model was developed and used to allow the phases to be
mapped on the transition curve The nine phases used here start at the transition point
(signifying the establishment of an interim government or occupation decree) phase I-
gain control phase II-secure the environment phase III-humanitarian response phase
IV-training and employment phase V-reconstruction phase VI-sovereignty phase VII-
revitalization phase VIII-neutralization and phase IX-normalization308
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq
Now that the phases have been described the transition curve will be used to model
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq The Afghanistan model (see figure 6) only shows the
initial year to keep the focus on the transition phase and not what is happening today
Afghanistan is unusual since it began with such a small decisive force initially there
were only three Special Forces operational detachments-Alphas later building up to a
total of seventeen by December of 2001 with very few conventional forces engaged until
the transition point and the establishment of the interim government At the transition
point in mid-December 2001 larger US and coalition force build-up took place
However the only areas that were secure were the major cities Everywhere else was
called the ldquowild wild Westrdquo309 The continued lack of security had made it difficult for
any reconstruction effort outside the major cities forcing some nongovernmental
308The nine phases were developed from the authorrsquos combined experiences in Kosovo and Northern Iraq
309Captain T interview
145
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)
146
organizations to withdraw US military civil affairs teams and the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams have become more active in an effort to pacify many of the
unsecured areas310
The level of insecurity has been steadily increasing over time This security
problem can also be tied to the efforts of US military In most cases Special Forces have
not changed their mission since the war began to stay on the offensive against remnants
of the Taliban and Al Qarsquoida Special Forces at this point should simply focus on
establishing a secure environment by taking an active role in training indigenous police
and military forces and acting as advisors to these units as they deploy in the outlying
areas This in turn will make the population feel more comfortable about providing
human intelligence which can then be acted on to neutralize the insurgent remnants
For Iraq (see figure 7) it is obvious that the country is not secure and is potentially getting
less secure as the insurgents continue to disrupt the stability and reconstruction efforts
This difficulty began with the uncontrolled looting at first and now the US is playing
catch-up to the insurgents It was not until the insurgency had become organized that the
coalition began trying to disrupt it instead of disrupting it before it ever had a chance to
get started
The other interesting aspect of this graph is with respect to force numbers
Immediately after the conflict it may have taken 130000 coalition troops to secure the
most difficult areas in and around the ldquoSunni Trianglerdquo However over the first several
months the insurgency began to grow in strength at the same time the conventional army
310Dobbins 140-141
147
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom)
148
was forced to take on multiple roles such as training and advising economic
reconstruction and local governance All of these secondary tasks meant that there were
few forces to establish security Add to this the collapse of the Iraqi police and the
disbandment of the Iraqi Army as well as the US attrition based counterinsurgency
efforts the insurgency grew exponentially during the first two years Now with current
coalition and Iraqi troop levels the security situation is still unfavorable yet there are
nearly twice as many troops with a total of 211700 Iraqi security forces trained and
equipped311 The graph also shows that the US conventional forces have to make up the
differences between the current indigenous force levels and what they need to be Until
this line grows to meet the US Force levels then the US will have to continue to commit
large numbers of ground troops
Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model
One question that arises from this analysis of the phases of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense is how do these phases and the transition point
correlate to the new joint operational phasing Figure 8 provided a visual example of the
joint phases and the corresponding phases of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
It is apparent upon further analysis that how these phases match up to the joint
phasing diagram depends if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or
the supporting effort It should also be noted that operational preparation of the
311Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report (Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005) slide 8
149
environment happens prior to the operational plan being approved by the President In
this sense operational preparation of the environment ends with the approval of the
operational plan and the first phase of unconventional warfare begins Once again this
highlights that operational preparation of the environment is a different mission set from
unconventional warfare and is applicable to any mission
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed
Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Note Numbering is authorrsquos
150
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense have a permanent place in
the future range of military operations doctrine The 2006 US Special Operations
Command posture statement highlights this fact stating ldquo[Special operations forcesrsquo] key
role in the long-term fight will be conducting [unconventional warfare] and [foreign
internal defense] to build foreign capabilities that deny terrorist organizations the ability
to sustain their effortsrdquo312 However in the same posture statement they define
unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo313 What are not clear are the differences in indigenous forces and
host nation forces nor does this definition of unconventional warfare provide the purpose
of working with by and through The idea that unconventional warfare is working by
with and through other forces indigenous or surrogates is not a new concept or point of
confusion found only in the US Special Operations Command posture statement The
Special Forces definition of unconventional warfare found in FM 3-0520 is the same as
defined in JP 1-02 except that through with and by are added ldquo[Unconventional
Warfare] is a broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations predominantly
conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo314
312United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 6 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
313Ibid
314FM 3-0520 2-1
151
One of the difficulties applying unconventional warfare as an overarching term to
the war on terror is the context of the doctrine which shows that unconventional warfare
is used to support armed indigenous forces aimed at overthrowing the government of a
nation-state and therefore does not apply against the than it cannot be used against a non-
state actor Other than Afghanistan al Qarsquoida has not yet successfully occupied any other
foreign nations Operations using indigenous or surrogate forces that are not aimed at the
overthrow of a government would more precisely be called foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism or counter-proliferation All of
these operations can doctrinally be conducted with surrogate forces but are not
unconventional warfare
This subtlety is another important aspect of why words matter An example of this
is the CIArsquos training of an Afghan unit to capture Usama bin Laden in 1998--a classic
example of counterterrorism not unconventional warfare as some would stipulate315
Another example of this concept comes from World War II when Aaron Bank was given
a mission to ldquoraise a company strength unit of German defectors military and civilian
conduct subversion sabotage and guerrilla actions and above all capture high-ranking
Nazisrdquo in what was believed to be their last holdout areas in the Austrian Alps316 Merely
by the subversion sabotage and guerrilla warfare aspects of this mission it would seem
to be a form of unconventional warfare however due to the short duration and limited
315ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo CBS News (15 September 2004) available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet accessed on 24 April 2006
316Bank 72-74
152
objectives of the mission of harassment versus overthrow it better qualifies it as a direct
action mission
In determining the future usefulness of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense three threat models have to be addressed those within the borders of a
state those that transnational or non-state actors and those in the amorphous
ldquoungoverned spaces or failed nations
In the first case threats within the border of a nation unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense will always have important roles The possible nation state
threats are hostile nations (Iraq) rogue nations (North Korea) states that sponsor
terrorism and insurgency (Iran and Syria) and states that are seized or controlled by al
Qarsquoida most likely within the caliphate boundary are exactly what unconventional
warfare was developed for--to overthrow regimes by supporting insurgency
As the previous example and the historical analysis demonstrate the future
foreign internal defense possibilities and applications are endless As has been witnessed
foreign internal defense can be used across the spectrum of conflict--from peacetime to
high-intensity postconflict environments--where a government friendly or passive to the
US needs help to effectively combat growing or potential insurgency subversion or
lawlessness Thus foreign internal defense is likely to be the primary mission due to the
number of friendly countries that face insurgency while unconventional warfare will be
reserved for the cases where there is a hostile rogue failed or terrorist-sponsoring
country
The second case is against non-state actors or transnational threats that threaten
regions or seek to upset the global balance and are not bound by borders The problem
153
with applying unconventional warfare against a non-state actor that is not in control of a
nation is that unconventional warfare was designed for use against a hostile government
or occupying power within a state Al Qarsquoida is neither a state nor an occupier as of yet
although the Taliban-led and al Qarsquoida supported Afghanistan could be the closest model
Al Qarsquoida and its associated movements are better classified as a global insurgency All
three of these elements eliminate unconventional warfare as the correct overall operation
term to be used to counter al Qarsquoida or other non-state actors The ldquoglobalrdquo aspect of this
insurgency also does not support the use of foreign internal defense as an overarching
term either since the problem is bigger than a single nation yet it is related to the defense
of the current global systems or global status quo In these cases there will be some
countries that are threatened by insurgencies supported by non-state actors such as the
insurgencies in Iraq and the Philippines in which case foreign internal defense will the
operation that has to be conducted to defeat these elements In the case of a hostile
regime that either supports a non-state actor is a puppet of the non-state actor or in fact
has been taken over by the non-state actor than unconventional warfare will be used to
overthrow these unfriendly regimes
The final threat model is that of the failed nation or ungoverned spaces Failed
states are best described as states that have no or minimally functioning governments
The Taliban run Afghanistan without its al Qarsquoida influences provides a good example
of a failed nation Even in failed states a State and a Counter-State can be identified In
the case of a hostile State unconventional warfare could be used by supporting the
Counter-State The Taliban State and the Northern Alliance Counter-State in Afghanistan
prior to 11 September may provide a good example of this relationship In the case of a
154
failed nation but with a friendly State foreign internal defense could be conducted to
strengthen the legitimacy and capability of the friendly State in hopes of developing a
functioning government
These failed states and the above premises on the State and Counter-State could
also easily be described as ungoverned spaces as well but in the context of this analysis
ungoverned spaces are areas where there is no effective government control even though
these areas are within the borders of a sovereign nation This area may also extend across
the border into neighboring countries as well such as the tri-border region in South
American where Brazil Paraguay and Argentina intersect and there is no effective
government control which enables criminal activity to thrive In these cases the solution
is to conduct foreign internal defense to help the government regain control of the
ungoverned spaces as the US tried during the White Star program in eastern Laos during
the Vietnam War Another solution when there is no viable government to support in
these efforts is to use a United Nations sanctioned operation or another international
coalition effort such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to move in and provide
security and build a government The US could do this unilaterally but based on the
current operations and domestic support it is unlikely that the US commit to such a
mission This mission would be the far end of the foreign internal defense scale and
would resemble the US efforts in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and no effective
government system operating
The discussion on Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense roles in the future is further complicated by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense
Review which uses the undefined term ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo to
155
describe the campaign against al Qarsquoida and its associated movements Global
unconventional warfare defined within the complete doctrinal context of unconventional
warfare means ldquosupport to global insurgencyrdquo Certainly this was not the intention of
calling it unconventional warfare but it does bring up a larger debate about the missions
that Special Forces will be conducting One problem is the misunderstanding of the
definition and doctrine of unconventional warfare and the other problem is that there is a
sense that anything that is not conventional must be unconventional with little thought
going into the meaning of the words Although well-intentioned at some point the use of
this terminology will likely have some semblance to the failed attempts in the summer of
2005 to change the global war on terror to global struggle against violent extremism or
war on extremism because the global war on terror did not correctly describe the war In
the same way ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo has some political baggage based on the
missing doctrinal context of unconventional warfare definition
This leads to the final question ldquowhat is the role of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense in the context of the Global War on Terrorrdquo Regardless of how
ldquotransnationalrdquo these movements are the sovereignty of the nation-states is still going to
constrain US and coalition operations Because of this there are really three situations
that unconventional warfare will be used for
1 Operations against Rogue Hostile Regimes or State Sponsors of Terrorism--a
proven operational concept having been used successfully twice since 11 September in
Afghanistan and Iraq These operations will either be the decisive or shaping operation
depending on the political sensitivity of the target country
156
2 Operations against what will be referred to in this study as al Qarsquoida states (AQ
States) in which al Qarsquoida is able to overthrow one or more of the regimes within the
boundary of the 7th century caliphate Unconventional warfare would be used to
overthrow these regimes
3 Operations in failed states when there is no effective government but an
element within the population such as a tribe or ethnic group is the State for all intents
and purposes In this case unconventional warfare will be used to overthrow this State
In each one of these cases as soon as the unconventional warfare or conventional
operations have been successful then they will shift to foreign internal defense in the
same way Afghanistan and Iraq transitioned to foreign internal defense Therefore
regardless of the operation the end state will likely include foreign internal defense
conducted once a friendly government is established
For this very reason foreign internal defense will continue to play a significant
role in US engagement strategies In a flashback to the past foreign internal defense will
be conducted for three reasons as well
1 Primarily to protect friendly states threatened by insurgency especially al
Qarsquoida sponsored insurgency such as the Sunni insurgency in Iraq supported by al
Qarsquoida affiliated Abu Musab Zarqawi or state-sponsored insurgency such as the Shirsquoa
insurgency supported by Iran
2 Foreign internal defense during peacetime engagement under the Theater
Security Cooperation Plan or during postconflict mission after the transition from
unconventional warfare and or conventional operations
157
3 To gain control of ungoverned spaces by supporting a weak government or
some portion of the population that is in these areas and will support US and coalition
efforts such as the Hmong tribesmen in Laos to regain control of these areas In extreme
cases international intervention could be used such as United Nations or other
internationally recognized coalitions or alliances to gain control establish a secure
environment and establish a government able to gain and maintain control
Therefore unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense will be the
primary missions of Special Forces in the future Figure 9 provides the actual framework
for Special Forces role within the Global War on Terror The figure shows clearly the
types of operations that will be conducted depending on the situation Analysis of the US
Special Operations Command threat model and the types of operations required for each
threats pictured in figure 10 also supports the above conclusions
Finally figure 9 also shows the relationship between operational preparation of
the environment and other missions Operational preparation of the environment is not
unconventional warfare but applies to every Special Forces missions Figure 9 shows
operational preparation of the environment as the precursor to different types of
operations Because this mission has its own tasks associated with it this may be the
operation that emerges as a new operational concept Another concept shown on the map
is counterinfrastructure instead of counterterrorism to signify that this mission can be
carried out against a regimersquos infrastructure or the infrastructure of an insurgent group
This would also be a more proactive mission versus the current counterterrorism
operations and could easily use ldquosurrogatesrdquo or indigenous forces to conduct these
operations yet would not be unconventional warfare
158
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort
159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model Source United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 4 available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedu les3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006 Note Missions and arrows were added by the author and are not found in any US Special Operations Command publication
Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency
For those that argue that unconventional warfare can be used to defea t an
insurgency David Galula provides some interesting insights First he explains wh y
insurgent warfare does not work for the counterinsurgent
Insurgency warfare is specifically designed to allow the camp afflicted with congenital weakness to acquire strength progressively while fighting The counterinsurgent is endowed with congenital strength for him to adopt the insurgentrsquos warfare would be the same as for a giant to try to fit into dwarfrsquos clothing317
317David Galula Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice (St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005) 73
160
David Galula also explains that if the counterinsurgent could operate as a guerrilla he
would have to have the support of the population which in turn means that the actual
insurgents do not have the support Therefore if the insurgent did not have the support of
the populous in the first place then there would be no need for the counterinsurgent to
operate in these areas However he does not discount the use of commando-style
operations in limited forms As he notes ldquoThey cannot however represent the main form
of the counterinsurgentrsquos warfarerdquo318
Another applicable comment from David Galula has to do with the possibility for
the counterinsurgent ldquoto organize a clandestine force able to defeat the insurgent on his
own termsrdquo the essence of the Global Unconventional Warfare concept As David Galula
explains
Clandestinity [sic] seems to be another of those obligations-turned-into-assets of the insurgent How could the counterinsurgent whose strength derives precisely from his open physical assets build up a clandestine force except as minor and secondary adjunct Furthermore room for clandestine organizations is very limited in revolutionary war Experience shows that no rival--not to speak of hostile--clandestine movements can coexist for long319
Summary
This chapter answered the secondary questions showing that unconventional
warfare is the support to insurgency while foreign internal defense is the support given to
a government to help that government defeat subversion lawlessness and insurgency
The description and subsequent models of the transition from unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense help to clarify the relationship between these two operations The
318Ibid
319Ibid
161
final question on the role of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
respect to non-state actor determined that they are applicable as individual operations
depending on the enemy threat in each country but that global unconventional warfare is
a misnomer This chapter sets the stage to answer the primary question in chapter 5
162
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This study set out to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as currently defined are still applicable to contemporary and future Special
Forces operations Without a doubt the most confusing aspect of this fifty-year old
debate is the definition of unconventional warfare
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion320
Although some would argue that the broad statement provides leeway in its
application what has actually happened is that in providing leeway Special Forces have
historically misunderstood the most basic element of the definition--support to
insurgency Much of the blame for this confusion is evident in the historical analysis
presented in chapter 3--Special Forces leaders were trying to provide a niche mission that
would assure Special Forcesrsquo relevance throughout the turbulent periods after Vietnam
and with the end of the Cold War
However the attempts to make unconventional warfare an overarching term and
the birth of the idea that unconventional warfare is any operation conducted by with and
through an indigenous force has had a grave impact on the forcesrsquo understanding of
unconventional warfare With the rise of the non-state actor there is new emphasis to
320JP 1-02
163
adapt unconventional warfare to this new threat regardless if it is the correct mission or
not The bottom line with respect to the current definition of unconventional warfare is
that taken in the context of unconventional warfare history and current doctrine it is
applicable to todayrsquos contemporary environment as evidenced by operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq but by itself could be and is inadvertently applied to missions it
was never intended As the analysis shows in chapter 4 unconventional warfare has a
significant place in future Special Forcesrsquo operations when regime removal is necessary
as in the cases of rogue or hostile regimes (Saddam Husseinrsquos regime) regimes that
support terrorist or global insurgent organization (Taliban) and finally if al Qarsquoida
successfully seizes power in a country within the caliphate In each of these cases
unconventional warfare will be a weapon of choice as either the decisive operation or as a
shaping operation for other elements of national power
As for foreign internal defense the definition is clear and based on the analysis of
the history of foreign internal defense it will without a doubt continue to be applicable
to future Special Forcesrsquo operations This is especially true in operations to overthrow
regimes through conventional operations and or unconventional warfare operations
which will rollover to foreign internal defense The clarity of the definition leaves little
room for misunderstanding ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a
government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo321 The foreign internal
defense definition provides one significant aspect that the unconventional warfare
definition does not--it provides the conditions that are to be met by the operations ldquoto free
321Ibid
164
and protect a society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo which leaves little
doubt of the purpose of these operations from peacetime engagement to high-intensity
and high-threat environments like Vietnam and Iraq The foreign internal defense
doctrine defines three types of support--indirect direct and combat--which provides
further clarity In todayrsquos environment and the future the key to success against the
global insurgency will be through foreign internal defense to enable US partner nations to
do exactly what the definition says protect themselves from ldquosubversion lawlessness and
insurgencyrdquo all three ingredients necessary to deny al Qarsquoida and its associated
movement sanctuary support freedom of movement and access to weapons of mass
destruction
Special Forces is the only branch specifically trained and ready to conduct these
operations Although the conventional military is doing its best to develop military
training teams they will never have the training experience and cultural awareness in
these types of operations that Special Forces bring to the table Special Forces is standing
in the door of a new paradigm shift The branch will either stay its current course
continually looking for relevancy or it can seize the opportunity and take its place as a
decisive or shaping force able to conduct unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as a key economy of force component of the Joint Forces range of military
operations
Recommendations
First unconventional warfare should be defined as operations by a state or non-
state actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or an
165
occupying power in another country322 In this definition insurgency would an inclusive
term for resistance or partisan operations as well Like foreign internal defense there
would be three types of support or operational approach indirect direct and combat the
application of which would depend on the political and security environments323 This
would make the definition of unconventional warfare as clear as the current definition of
foreign internal defense and would finally end the confusion by providing a purpose
Also like the foreign internal defense definition the new unconventional warfare
definition would be universal In other words external support could be provided by Iran
Syria China Cuba North Korea and even Al Qarsquoida
With regards to the three types of support or operational approach as used
throughout this study each would be used depending on the environment whether hostile
or denied Indirect support would be used when the environment is denied The indirect
approach would focus on the insurgencyrsquos self-sufficiency by indirectly providing lethal
and nonlethal aid money and training through a third party or in the case of training in
a third party country or in the US as was done with the Tibetans Direct support would
include all aspects of support but would put Special Forces in sanctuary or liberated
areas within the vicinity of the conflict but not in direct contact with the hostile
governmentrsquos forces as was the case with the Contras However during this type of
322Jones Although part of the recommended definition in the above mentioned article upon further research the author has dropped ldquoconstitutedrdquo from the definition since there are fewer ldquoconstitutedrdquo or even governments as historically defined in the likely hotspots of today Instead more and more governments are like the Taliban--not a government in the true sense of the word but strong enough to seize and maintain power as the ldquostaterdquo versus some minority or weaker element the ldquocounter-staterdquo such as the Northern Alliance
323Grdovic
166
support there could be risk to Special Forces personnel if the hostile government
launched punitive strikes or raids into these areas to disrupt or destroy the insurgents
Finally if the operational approach is combat support than Special Forces would conduct
all of the supporting tasks mentioned above and would participate in combat operations
as advisors to the insurgency and coordinate other US assets such as close air support
Second the post-11 September unconventional warfare operations also validated
the seven-phase concept of US sponsored insurgency However the final phase
demobilization would be better served if called transition Thus Special Forces would
begin to shape the postconflict environment as combat operations ended to ensure success
in the stability phase by identifying potential threats providing security and transitioning
the insurgents into local militia units that would disrupt any attempts by former regime
elements to establish an insurgent infrastructure The unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense transition point should also be captured within unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine
Third ensure a broader understanding of unconventional warfare throughout the
military and interagency by describing unconventional warfare in detail in core joint and
service doctrinal manuals Currently for example unconventional warfare is not
mentioned in the 3-0 family of capstone Joint publications or the Armyrsquos field manual on
operational doctrine Instead support to insurgency with no reference to unconventional
warfare is described in single paragraph under stability operations The success of
unconventional warfare in Afghanistan demonstrated that SOF can perform economy of
force operations by supporting insurgencies the Northern Alliance in this case and that
these combined forces can conduct decisive offensive operations SOFrsquos unconventional
167
warfare efforts in Northern Iraq advising the Kurds also validated the concept of using
insurgents to conduct shaping operations in support of conventional forces
Fourth the Global Unconventional Warfare campaign needs to be dropped in
favor of a better term that captures the counterinsurgency nature of this war possibly
global counterinsurgency counter global insurgency global internal defense or global
counter irregular warfare To do this the problem global insurgency must first be
defined A recommended definition is operations by one or more networked non-state
entities with the goal of overthrowing or dramatically changing the global status quo or
disrupting globalization The possible definition for the counter to this would be similar
to the foreign internal defense definition but on a grand-strategy scale
A broad range of direct and indirect interagency coalition special operations and conventional military efforts to defeat global insurgency subversion and lawlessness by denying sanctuary freedom of movement external support mechanisms mass popular support access to weapons of mass destruction psychological and propaganda effects operational intelligence and armed offensive capabilities
Under this definition a single overarching term may not be needed but it would be the
combined ldquoeffectsrdquo of operations across the globe For Special Forces this would include
unconventional warfare foreign internal defense operational preparation of the
battlefield direct action counterterrorism counterproliferation special reconnaissance
and a new term counterinfrastructure Counterinfrastructure would entail destroying
defeating disrupting or capturing hostile regime non-state actor or insurgent
infrastructure This is a more proactive type of operation than counterterrorism which is
generally reactive in nature This operational term describes the current global
interdiction of al Qarsquoida and associated movements as well as the operation taken to
168
capture former regime elements and insurgent leaders in Iraq This operation would also
include the use of surrogates
Fifth operational preparation of the environment needs to be added to the core
special operations forces core mission or more correctly operations This operation is
not unconventional warfare but an operation in and of itself that can set the conditions
for the execution of the other core tasks By making it a stand-alone mission specific
doctrine could be published for operational preparation of the environment instead of
capturing this doctrine in other core mission doctrine which adds to the confusion
Sixth if unconventional warfare becomes an overarching term for operations by
with and through indigenous or surrogate forces then the confusion over unconventional
warfare will continue A possible solution would be to define each of the Special Forces
missions separately under this umbrella term The above recommended unconventional
warfare definition would instead be used to define a new term such as support to
insurgency or STI The big three ldquoby with and throughrdquo missions would be support to
insurgency operational preparation of the environment and foreign internal defense
However the other operational terms counter-proliferation counterterrorism counter-
infrastructure direct action and special reconnaissance could also be conducted by
through and with indigenous and surrogate forces and use the same three operational
approaches as outlined for unconventional warfare When used this way they could also
fall under this overarching unconventional warfare term324
324Jones On further analysis of this problem this is a better solution than the one outlined in the Why Words Matter paper which suggested support to insurgency and operations against non-state actors would fall under this overarching term Based on the US Special Operations Command 2006 posture statement the use of surrogates and
169
Seventh this study has also highlighted a deficiency in the joint doctrinersquos
definition of insurgency The current joint definition for insurgency does not address
resistance or partisan operations against an occupier reading ldquoan organized movement
aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo325 Instead of this definition a new recommended definition for insurgency is
ldquoan organized movement or resistance aimed at the overthrow of a constituted
government or removal of an occupying power through the use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo
Finally one of the byproducts of this study was the identification of a trend which
tries to leverage ldquounconventional warfare skillsrdquo to separate Special Forces from the rest
of the special operations community326 To some these are the skills that make up the
warrior-diplomat capability of Special Forces However Special Forces soldiers use these
same skills regardless of the mission and this is what sets Special Forces apart If Special
Forces are truly ldquospecialrdquo compared to the rest of the special operations community it is
because of the nature of their training and mindset that have not been readily transferable
to other special operation forces Therefore these unconventional warfare skills are
actually Special Forces skills and should be captured in this manner to not only leverage
indigenous forces during other types of operations must be clarified based on the noted fact that direct action and counterterrorism were not listed as one of the operational missions of Special Operation Forces having been rolled up under unconventional warfare
325JP 3-0 V-13
326Rothstein 102
170
their uniqueness but also to reduce the confusion between unconventional warfare the
operation and a set of skills
Areas for Further Research
During the research of this project numerous other areas of research came to light
that warrant further study
First was the Special Forces direct action and intelligence collection focus the
most efficient use of these high-demand and low-density assets or could they have been
employed as trainers and advisors to produce a larger positive effect on the growth and
success of the Iraqi and Afghani security forces while simultaneously reducing the
insurgency
Second would a large-scale employment of Special Forces detachments be a
better long-term choice for training and advising than the conventional military training
team concept This is based on the premise that US domestic support for the prolonged
operations in Iraq is a direct reflection of continued conventional force deployments
Therefore these deployments could be shortened by using Special Forces to conduct
economy of force operations and allowing the conventional military to withdraw
Third conduct a detailed study of counterinfrastructure operations This would
include not only unilateral US efforts but host-nation partner and surrogate operations
and operations using former elements that have been ldquoturnedrdquo in what are called ldquopseudoshy
operationsrdquo
Last could a Special Forces deployable task force and the related command and
control structure and training capacity be able to develop a host nation military and
internal security forces and systems filling the role of the Multi-National Security 171
Transition Command ndashIraq This idea comes from the doctrinal based premise that an
operational detachment alpha can train equip and employ an indigenous battalion
Therefore based on a logical progression of capabilities a Special Forces company also
known as an operational detachment bravo should be able to train and advise an
indigenous brigade a Special Forces battalion an operational detachment charlie should
be capable of training and advising an indigenous division a Special Forces Group then
would be able to train and advise an indigenous Corps and a deployable Special Forces
task force headquarters such as a Joint Forces Special Operations Component
commander of appropriate general officer rank and his staff would be able to train and
advise an indigenous Army This final level would be capable and prepared to do exactly
what the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq has done but instead of
being an ad hoc organization it would be an inherent Special Forces capability and
responsibility
172
GLOSSARY
Antiterrorism Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and propert to terrorist acts to include limited response and containment by local military forces Also called AT (JP 1-02)
Biometrics The measuring of physical human features to ensure that a person once registered can be identified later even if his or her identity documents or facial characteristics change(US Army Battle Command Battle Lab) Campaign Plan A plan for a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space (JP 1-02)
Civil Administration An administration established by a foreign government in (1) friendly territory under an agreement with the government of the area concerned to exercise certain authority normally the function of the local government or (2) hostile territory occupied by United States forces where a foreign government exercises executive legislative and judicial authority until an indigenous civil government can be established Also called CA administration (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Designated Active and Reserve component forces and units organized trained and equipped specifically to conduct civil affairs activities and to support civil-military operations Also called CA (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Activities Activities performed or supported by civil affairs that (1) enhance the relationship between military forces and civil authorities in areas where military forces are present and (2) involve application of civil affairs functional specialty skills in areas normally the responsibility
Civil-Military Operations The activities of a commander that establish maintain influence or exploit relations between military forces governmental and nongovernmental civilian organizations and authorities and the civilian populace in a friendly neutral or hostile operational area in order to facilitate military operations to consolidate and achieve operational US objectives Civil-military operations may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of the local regional or national government These activities may occur prior to during or subsequent to other military actions They may also occur if directed in the absence of other military operations Civil military operations may be performed by designated civil affairs by other military forces or by a combination of civil affairs and other forces Also called CMO (JP 1-02)
Combatant Command A unified or specified command with a broad continuing mission under a single commander established and so designated by the President through the Secretary of Defense and with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of
173
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Combatant commands typically have geographic or functional responsibilities (JP 1-02)
Combatant Commander A commander of one of the unified or specified combatant commands established by the President (JP 1-02)
Combatting Terrorism Actions including antiterrorism (defensive measures taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist acts) and counterterrorism (offensive measures taken to prevent deter and respond to terrorism) taken to oppose terrorism throughout the entire threat spectrum Also called CBT (JP 1-02)
Conventional Forces (1) Those forces capable of conducting operations using nonnuclearweapons (2) Those forces other than designated special operations forces (JP 1-02)
Counterdrug Those active measures taken to detect monitor and counter the productiontrafficking and use of illegal drugs Also called CD (JP 1-02)
Counterinsurgency Those military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency Also called COIN (FM 1-02 1-47)
Counterintelligence Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage other intelligence activities sabotage or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof foreign organizations or foreign persons or international terrorists activities Also called CI (JP 1-02)
Counterterrorism Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent deter preempt and respond to terrorism Also called CT (JP 1-02)
Country Team The senior in-country US coordinating and supervising body headed by the chief of the US diplomatic mission and composed of the senior member of each represented US department or agency as desired by the chief of the US diplomatic mission (JP 1-02)
Direct Action Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions by special operations forces or special operations-capable units to seize destroy capture recover or inflict damage on designated personnel or material (FM 1-02 1-60)
Foreign Internal Defense Participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency Also called FID (JP 1-02)
Host Nation A nation that receives the forces andor supplies of allied nations coalition partners andor NATO organizations
174
Hostile Environment Operational environment in which hostile forces have control as well as the intent and capability to effectively oppose or react to the operations a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Indigenous Native originating in or intrinsic to an area or region (FM 3-0520)
Insurgency An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Interagency Coordination Within the context of Department of Defense involvement the coordination that occurs between elements of Department of Defense andengaged US Government agencies nongovernmental organizations and regional and international organizations for the purpose of accomplishing an objective (JP 1-02)
Internal Defense And Development The full range of measures taken by a nation to promote its growth and to protect itself from subversion lawlessness and insurgency It focuses on building viable institutions (political economic social and military) that respond to the needs of society Also called IDAD (JP 1-02)
Joint Task Force A joint force that is constituted and so designated by the Secretary of Defense a combatant commander a subordinate unified command commander or an existing joint task force commander Also called JTF (JP 1-02)
Military Assistance Advisory Group A joint Service group normally under the military command of a commander of a unified command and representing the Secretary of Defense which primarily administers the US military assistance
Military Civic Action The use of preponderantly indigenous military forces on projects useful to the local population at all levels in such fields as education training public works agriculture transportation communications health sanitation and others contributing to economic and social development which would also serve to improve the standing of the military forces with the population (US forces may at times advise or engage in military civic actions in overseas areas) (JP 1-02)
Military Support to Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Department of Defense activities that support US Government plans for stabilization security reconstruction and transition operations which lead to sustainable peace while advancing US interests (DoDD 300005)
Paramilitary Forces Forces or groups distinct from the regular armed forces of any country but resembling them in organization equipment training or mission (JP 1-02)
Permissive Environment Operational environment in which host country military and law enforcement agencies have control as well as the intent and capability to
175
assist operations that a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Special Operations Operations conducted by specially organized trained and equipped military and paramilitary forces to achieve military political economic or informational objectives by unconventional military means in hostile denied or politically sensitive areas (FM 1-02 1-173)
Special Operations Forces Those Active and Reserve Component forces of the Military Services designated by the Secretary of Defense and specifically organized trained and equipped to conduct and support special operations Also called SOF (JP 1-02)
Special Reconnaissance Reconnaissance and surveillance actions conducted by special operations forces to obtain or verify by visual observation or other collection methods information concerning the capabilities intentions and activities of an actual or potential enemy or to secure data concerning the meteorological hydrographic or geographic characteristics of a particular area (FM 1-02 1-174)
Stability Operations Operations that promote and protect US national interests by influencing the threat political and information dimensions of the operational environment through a combination of peacetime development cooperative activities and coercive actions in response to a crisis (FM 1-02 1-175)
Stability Operations Military and civilian activities conducted across the spectrum from peace to conflict to establish or maintain order in States and regions (DoDD 300005)
Subversion Action designed to undermine the military economic psychological or political strength or morale of a regime See also unconventional warfare (JP 1shy02)
Support to Counterinsurgency Support provided to a government in the military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions it undertakes to defeat insurgency (JP 1-02)
Support to Insurgency Support provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Surrogate someone who takes the place of or acts for another a substitute (FM 3-0520)
Terrorism The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political religious or ideological (JP 1-02)
176
Transition Point Authorrsquos definition for the point of phase shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense operations or conventionally a shift from conflict to postconflict
Uncertain Environment Operational environment in which host government forces whether opposed to or receptive to operations that a unit intends to conduct do not have totally effective control of the territory and population in the intended operational area (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Unconventional Warfare A broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes but is not limited to guerrilla warfare subversion sabotage intelligence activities and unconventional assisted recovery Also called UW (JP 1-02)
177
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams Thomas K Military Doctrine and the Organization Culture of the United States Army Ann Arbor University Microfilms 1990
________ US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998
Ancker III Clinton J Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing Fort Leavenworth KS Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005
Ancker III Clinton J and Michael D Burke ldquoDoctrine for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Military Review (July-August 2003) Available from httpwwwfindarticles comparticles mi_m0PBZis_4_83ai_109268858 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004)
Andrade Dale and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
Asprey Robert B War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994
Ayers Cynthia E ldquoIraqi Resistance to Freeedom A Frommian Perspectiverdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 68-84
Baer Robert See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001
Bailey Cecil E ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
Bank Aaron USA Colonel Retired From OSS to Green Berets New York Pocket Books 1986
Barker Geoffrey T A Concise History of US Army Special Operations Forces Fayetteville NC Anglo-American Publishing Company 1988
Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet Accessed on 3 May 2006
Bernhard Michael ldquoThe Lessons of a Successful Military Occupationrdquo Strategic Insight (May 2003)
Biddle Stephen ldquoSpecial Forces and the Future of Warfare Will SOF Predominate in 2020rdquo US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute 2004
178
Book Elizabeth ldquoRole of Special Ops Evolves Over Timerdquo National Defense Magazine February 2002 Available from httpwwwnationaldefensemagazineorgarticle cfmId=719 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004
Boyatt Mark D Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
Boykin William G ldquoVigilant Warrior 2002 War Game Demonstrates ARSOFrsquos Value to the Objective Forcerdquo Special Warfare (September 2001) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442223 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
________ Major General ldquoFrom the Commandantrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 1
Briscoe C H Dr ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
Brook Robin Sir ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992
Brown Frederic J Lieutenant General Retired ldquoAmericarsquos Army Expeditionary and Enduring-Foreign and Domesticrdquo Military Review (November-December 2003) Available from httpwwwarmymilprof_writingvolumesvolume2february_ 20042_04_4_pfhtml Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Cassidy Robert M Major ldquo41 (sic) Why Great Powers Fight Small Wars Badlyrdquo Military Review (September-October 2002 English Edition) Available from httpwwwcgscarmymilmilrevenglishSepOct02cassidyasp Internet Accessed on 31 October 2003
Cavallora Gina ldquoIraqis get the basics Drill sergeants deploy to the war zonerdquo The Army Times (June 2004) 22
CBS News ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo 15 September 2004 Available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet Accessed on 24 April 2006
Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd
Charters David and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984
179
Chiarelli Peter W Major General and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
Cline Lawrence E ldquoThe New Constabularies Planning US Military Stabilization Missionsrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 14 no 3 (Autumn 2003) 158-184
Coffey Ross Major ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
Collins John M ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 22-27
Corum James S and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003
Cox Matthew ldquorsquoThey are so undisciplinedrsquo Iraqi forces learn ropes of battle but curve is steeprdquo The Army Times 27 (September 2004) 8
Crawley Vince and Nicole Gaudiano ldquoAbu Ghraib Investigator 4th Star lsquoUnlikelyrsquo For Sanchez-CIA lsquoGhost Detaineesrsquo Raise Lawmakersrsquo Irerdquo The Army Times 20 (September 2004) 12
Crerar J H Colonel Retired US Army ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37-39
Daugherty William J Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004
Defend America News ldquoIraq Time Linerdquo Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milIraqTimeLinehtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Department of Defense 2003-2004 SOF Posture Statement Special OperationsLow-Intensity Conflict Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpolicysolic 2003_2004_SOF_Posture_Statementpdf Internet Accessed on 10 April 2004
________ Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005 Available from httpwwwdticmil futurejointwarfareconceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet Accessed on 17 February 2006
________ Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 300005 Military Support for Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations Washington DC GPO 2005
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2004 A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Available from httpwwwoftosdmil
180
librarylibrary_filesdocument_377_National20Military20Strategy201320 May2004pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
________ Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet Accessed on 8 February 2006
________ Stability Operations Joint Operating Concept September 2004 Available from httpwwwdticmiljointvisionfinalstab_jocdoc Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004)
Department of the Army and the Department of the US Air Force Field Manual 100shy20Air Force Pamphlet 3-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflicts Washington DC GPO 1990
Department of the Army Field Manual 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations Forces Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 100-5 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0520 (FM 31-20) Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 3-07 (FM 100-20) Stability Operations and Support Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 20 April 1990
________ Field Manual 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques Washington DC GPO 1971
________ Field Manual 31-20-3 Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces Washington DC GPO 1989
________ Field Manual 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 1961
________ Field Manual 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla Warfare Washington DC GPO 1951
181
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1963
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1969
________ Field Manual 90-8 Counterguerrilla Operations Washington DC GPO 1986
________ The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower-Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section I Army Strategic Planning Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section II Army Planning Priorities Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
Department of the Navy Small Wars Draft January 2004 Available from httpwww smallwarsquanticousmcmilSWMSmall20Wars20Draft20Web202pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005
Devotie Michael W Sergeant First Class ldquoUnconventional Warfare A Viable Option for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1997) 30-32
Diamond Larry ldquoWhat Went Wrong in Iraqrdquo Foreign Affairs 83 no 5 (September October 2004) 34-56
Dickson Keith D Dr ldquoThe New Asymmetry Unconventional Warfare and Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Fall 2001) 14-19
Dobbins James ldquoAfghanistanrsquos Faltering Reconstructionrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2002 Available from httprandorgcommentary091202NYThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoNation-building The Inescapable Responsibility of the Worldrsquos Only Superpowerrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2003 Available from httprandorg publicationsrandreviewissuessummer2003nation1html Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoSecuring the Peace Will Require Finesserdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary062704CRhtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
182
Dobbins James John G McGinn Keith Crane Seth G Jones Rollie Lal Andrew Rathmell Rachel Swagner and Anga Timilsina Americarsquos Role in Nation-Building From Germany to Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND 2003
Donahoe Patrick J Lt Col ldquoPreparing Leaders for Nationbuildingrdquo Military Review (May-June 2004) 24-26
Fastabend David Brigadier General ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo PowerPoint presentation slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquoprepared for Joint Forces Command TRADOC 2004
Federal News Service ldquoBriefing on Coalition Post-war Reconstruction and Stabilization Effortsrdquo (transcript) Washington DC Federal News Service Inc 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmiltranscripts2003tr20030612shy0269html Internet Accessed on 4 October 2004
Field Kimberly C and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Fischer Joseph R ldquoCut from a Different Cloth The Origins of US Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (April 1995) 29-39
Fishel John T ldquoLittle Wars Small Wars LIC OOTW The GAP and Things That Go Bump in the Nightrdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 372-398
Flavin William ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 95-112 Available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Flournoy Michegravele Interagency Strategy and Planning for Post-Conflict Reconstruction Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) March 2002 Available from httpwwwcsis orgisppcrstrategypdf Internet Accessed on 10 October 2004
Foot M R D The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984
Franks Tommy General with Malcolm McConnell American Soldier General Tommy Franks Commander in Chief United States Central Command New York Harper-Collins Publishers Inc 2004
Frizzell Art ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgoverview html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Galula David Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005
183
Garamone Jim ldquoUS Army Trains Free Iraqi Forces in Hungaryrdquo American Forces Press Service 23 February 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnews Feb2003 n022420003_200302243html Internet Accessed on 24 September 2004
Gilmore Gerry J ldquoDespite Challenges Iraqi Forces lsquoIn the Fightrsquordquo DefenseLINK News 29 September 2004 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnewsSep 2004n09292004_2004092910html Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo Available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 Available from httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraray congress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2005
Godson Roy Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004
Grau Lester W Lt Col (ret) ldquoSomething Old Something New Guerrillas Terrorists and Intelligence Analysisrdquo Military Review (July-August 2004) 42-49
________ Multiple conversations on topic with the author September 2003 to October 2004 Fort Bragg NC
________ ldquoFOB 103 Operations in Northern Iraqrdquo Slide presentation Fort Bragg NC 28 August 2003
________ (Now Lieutenant Colonel) Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Grossman Elaine M ldquoAdvisers to Rumsfeld DOD Canrsquot Sustain Current Stability Operationsrdquo Inside The Pentagon Inside Washington Publishers 23 September 2004 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetgrossman advisers_to_rumsfeldhtm Internet Accessed on 9 October 2004
Halstead Brian D CW2 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Questions Concerns and Proposalsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 29-31
Hamblet John ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg chinahtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
184
Harclerode Peter Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden London Cassell and Company 2001
Harned Glenn M Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
Heckler Jeremy Sgt ldquoIraqis Denounce Barsquoath Party en masserdquo Iraqi Destiny 1 no 57 (January 2004) 2 5
Herd Walter Colonel ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service 13 June 2005 Available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Hoffman Bruce ldquoLessons from the Past for Iraqrsquos Futurerdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary072304SDUThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
Hoffman Bruce Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND National Security Research Division 2004
Hogan David W Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II Washington DC Department of the Army 1992
Holms Richard L ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 Available from httpwwwodci govcsistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet Accessed on 18 June 2005
Horton Lynn Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 Athens GA Ohio University 1998
Hughes Patrick M ldquoGlobal Threats and Challenges The Decades Ahead Prepared Statement before the Senate Armed Services Committeerdquo 2 February 1999 Washington DC Available from wwwdefenselinkmilspeeches1999 s19990202-hugheshtml Internet Accessed on 30 August 2003
Irvin Will Lt Col (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 New York NY PublicAffairs 2005
Ivosevic Michael J CW3 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Refining the Definitionrdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1999) 39
Jaffe Greg ldquoOn Ground in Iraq Capt Ayers Writes His Own Playbook Thrust Into New Kind of War Junior Officers Become Armyrsquos Leading Experts Risky Deal with Village Sheikrdquo Wall Street Journal 22 September 2004 1-6
Jalali Ali A ldquoRebuilding Afghanistanrsquos National Armyrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2002) 72-86
185
Joes Anthony James America and Guerrilla Warfare Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000
John F Kennedy Special Warfare Training Center Around the Campfire A Discussion The War on Terror Cody WY Government Publications January 2004
Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Washington DC GPO 2001 (as amended through 9 June 2004) Available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet Accessed on 16 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination Washington DC GPO 23 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 10 September 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Doctrine for Joint Special Operations Washington GPO 2003
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD Washington DC GPO 12 April 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism Washington DC GPO 1 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs 2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet Accessed on 6 February 2006
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategy Chapter 2 The Strategic Environment-shyOpportunities and Challenges Available from wwwdticmiljcsnmsstrategihtm Internet Accessed on 3 October 2004
Joint Special Operations Insights Issues and Lessons (SIPRNET) Norfolk VA (classified website used only for reference ndash no classified information released)
Jones D Major ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo 5 February 2005 Scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
Jones Frank L ldquoArmy SOF in Afghanistan Learning the Right Lessonsrdquo Joint Force Quarterly (Winter 2002-03) 16-22
186
Jones Gary M Colonel and Major Christopher Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 4-15
Kaplan Robert D Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground New York NY Random House 2005
Kem Jack D Dr Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd
Kershner Michael R Colonel ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84-86
________ ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 2-7
Kiper Richard L Dr ldquoAn Army For Afghanistan The 1st Battalion 3rd SF Group and the Afghan Armyrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) 42-43
Kruger Kimbra L ldquoUS Military Intervention in Third World Conflict The Need for Integration of Total War and LIC Doctrinerdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 399-428
Lambert Geoffrey C Major General ldquoMajor Combat and Restoration Operations A Discussionrdquo Special Warfare (February 2004) 2-5
________ ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20-27
Language Technology Office DCD ldquoBiometrics Automated Toolset (BAT)rdquo (Briefing Slides) US Army Battle Command Battle Lab Huachuca March 2004
Lauber Mark LTC Retired Multiple discussions with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
Leever Gretha Municipal Affairs Officer United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo Multiple conversations with the author on the UNrsquos capacity to conduct postconflict operations Kosovo November 2001 to January 2002
Lewis S J Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991
Lindsay Franklin A Basic Doctrine for the Conduct of Unconventional Warfare McKinsey and Company Inc 1961
187
Linnington Abigail T Captain Unconventional Warfare as a Strategic Foreign Policy Tool The Clinton Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan Thesis The Fletcher School (Tufts University) 2004
Lomperis Timothy J From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996
Magni Frank Sgt ldquoAfghan Army Maneuvers With Task Force Broncordquo Defend America News 13 August 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesaug2004a081304ahtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Malcom Ben S Colonel Retired and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996
Maloney Sean M ldquoAfghanistan From Here to Eternityrdquo Parameters (Spring 2004) 4shy15
Manwaring Max G and John T Fishel ldquoInsurgency and Counter-Insurgency Toward a New Analytical Approachrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 3 no 3 (Winter 1992) 272-310
Marquis Susan L Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces Washington DC The Brookings Institute 1997
Marr Phebe ldquoIraq lsquoThe Day Afterrsquo Internal Dynamics in Post-Saddam Iraqrdquo Naval War College Review I VI no 1 (Winter 2003) Available from httpwwwnewnavy milpressReview2003winterpdfsart1-w03pdf Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
Materazzi Albert ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg italyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Maurer Kevin ldquoIraqis Learn To Take Up Their Own Defenserdquo Fayetteville Online 24 February 2004 Available from httpwwwfayettevilleobservercomprinter phpStory-6193578 Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
McClintock Michael Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 2002 Available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet Accessed on 21 February 2006
McCollaum Peter Major Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
McCormick Gordon Dr US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division Presentation at the Unconventional Warfare
188
Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC
McMillan Joseph ldquoBuilding an Iraqi Defense Forcerdquo Strategic Forum no 198 (June 2003) 1-7
McRaven William H SPEC OPS Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare Theory and Practice Navato CA Presidio Press 1996
Meigs Montgomery C ldquoUnorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) 4-18
Messing Major and William Shingleton National Defense Council Foundation World Conflict List 1999 Available from wwwndeforgConflict_ListWorld99html Internet Accessed on 20 February 2004
Metzgar Major Greg E ldquoUnconventional Warfare Definitions from 1950 to the Presentrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 18-23
Miksche F O Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements London Faber and Faber Limited
Miller Dean J Tech Sgt ldquoUS Teaches Georgians Command Control Skillsrdquo Defend America News 14 July 2002 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesjun2002a061402ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Miller Russell Behind the Lines The Oral History of Special Operations in World War II New York NY New American Library 2002
Morris Niger ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946rdquo BBC History Available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwosoe_printhtml Internet Accessed on 1 December 2005
Műller Kurt E ldquoToward a Concept of Strategic Civil Affairsrdquo Parameters (Winter 1998) 80-98
Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq MNSTC-I et al Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommil Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
Naylor Sean D ldquorsquoPaying the pricersquo for pulling out Commanders see a tough fight to retake Fallujahrdquo The Army Times 4 October 2004 10
Newman Dean S Major ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo Available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
189
ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
OrsquoHanlon Michael E ldquoA Flawed Masterpiece (Afghanistan Conflict 2001-)rdquo Foreign Affairs 81 no 3 (May-June 2002) 1-7
Oakley Robert B and TX Hammes ldquoSecuring Afghanistan Entering a Make-or Break Phaserdquo Strategic Forum no 205 (March 2004) 1-6
Paddock Alfred H Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Washington DC National Defense University 1982
Paddock Jr Alfred H US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Kansas University Press 2002
Prados John Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf Chicago Elephant Paperbacks 1986
Prusher Ilene R ldquoNews outlets flood Kirkuk-and satellite dish sales soar-as Husseinrsquos era of censorship crumblesrdquo Christian Science Monitor 29 April 2003 Available from httpwww csmonitorcom20030429p06s01-woiqhtml Internet Accessed on 30 October 2004
Pullen Randy Col ldquoAfghan National Army Recruiting Extends to Northeastrdquo Defense LINK News 24 September 2004 Available from httpwww defenselinkmil newsSep2004n09242004_2004092402html Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
________ ldquoNew Afghan Soldiers Pledge to Serve a Nationrdquo Defend America News 29 July 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamericamilarticlesjul2004 a072904ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Reed James W ldquoShould Deterrence Fail War Termination in Campaign Planningrdquo Parameters (Summer 1993) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmymiluaswc parameters1993reedhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Robinson Linda Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces New York NY Public Affairs 2004
________ ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 Available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Rothstein Hy S Afghanistan and the Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006
190
Salmoni Barak A ldquoIraq Now Choosing Sovereignty or Democracyrdquo Strategic Insights 3 no 8 (August 2004)
Sandler Stanley ldquoArmy Psywarriors A History of US Army Psychological Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1992) 18-25
Sandler Stanley ldquoSeal the Victory A History of US Army Civil Affairsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 1991) 38-41
Schadlow Nadia ldquoWar and the Art of Governancerdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 85-94
Schoomaker Peter J (GEN CINC US Special Operations Command) ldquoSpecial Operations Forces The Way Aheadrdquo undated 2
Sepp Kalev I Dr ldquoThe Campaign in Transition From Conventional to Unconventional Warrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) Available from httpwwwfind articlescomp articlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442212 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
Shaw Geoffery D T ldquoPolicemen versus Soldiers the Debate Leading to MAAG Objections and Washington Rejections of the Core of the British Counter-Insurgency Advicerdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 12 no 2 (Summer 2001) 15shy78
Shultz Richard H Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999
Simpson Charles M III Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years Novato CA Presido Press 1983
Singlaub John K Major General (ret) Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century New York NY Summit Books 1991
Skinner Mike ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare As an SF mission-Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16 Available from httpwwwfind articlescomparticles mi_m0HZYis_1_15ai_89646648print Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Smith Jeffrey R ldquoKosovo Still Seethes as UN Official Nears Exitrdquo The Washington Post 18 December 2000 A20 quoted in Kimberly C Field and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo Available from httpwww specialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet Accessed on 22 January 2006
191
ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo Available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtm Internet Accessed on 2 December 2005
Steele Dennis ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article onshyline] Available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet Accessed on 14 May 2006
Szelowski David W Lt Col USMCR (ret) ldquoThe Beginning of the Next Warrdquo handlebarsorg July 2003 Available from httpwwwhandlebarsorga=article printamparticleid =204 Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
The Advisor Volume 1 Multi-national Security Transition Command 11 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep11pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 2 Multi-national Security Transition Command 18 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisorTheAdvisor Sep18pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 3 Multi-national Security Transition Command 25 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep25pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Thomas Glenn CPT (now Major) Conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
Tomes Robert R ldquoRelearning Counterinsurgency Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 2004) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0IBR is_1_34ai_115566394 Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Tovo Kenneth E Major ldquoSpecial Forces Mission Focus for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (December 1996) 2-11
Unified Combatant Command for Special Operations Forces ldquoUS Code Title 10 Section 167rdquo Available from www4lawCornelleduuscode Internet Accessed on 10 January 2004
US Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 Available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet Accessed on 6 April 2006
US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978
US Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) ldquoUnconventional Warfare 2020rdquo (Power Point Presentation) No Date
192
US Army Special Operations Command ldquoMission Area Analysis for POM FY02-07rdquo Fort Bragg NC January 1999
US Army Training and Doctrine Command The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Fort Monroe VA GPO 2003
________ TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-520 Fort Monroe VA GPO 2004
US Government The 911 Commission Report Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Washington DC GPO 2004
US Marine Corps Small Wars Manual Manhattan KS Sunflower University Press 1988
Volckmann Russell Lieutenant Colonel US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951
von Clausewitz Carl On War ed and trans by Michael Howard and Peter Paret Princeton NJ Princeton University Press 1976
Warner Michael The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000 Available from httpwww ciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet Accessed on 4 December 2005
Wendt Eric P Lieutenant Colonel (P) ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
Wilcox Greg and Gary I Wilson ldquoMilitary Response to Fourth Generation Warfare in Afghanistanrdquo d-n-inet 5 May 2002 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetfcs wilson_wilcox_miltary_responsehtm Internet Accessed on 11 August 2004
Williams Thomas J ldquoStrategic Leader Readiness and Competencies for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmy miluaswcparameters03summerwilliamshtm Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Wilson Robert Lee Captain ldquoUnconventional Warfare SFrsquos Past Present and Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 24-27
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoPrepared Statement for the House Appropriations Committee Foreign Operations Subcommitteerdquo Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilspeeches 2004 sp20040429-depsecdef0303html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
193
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoThe Road Map for a Sovereign Iraqrdquo Available from httpwww defenselinkmil speeches2004sp20040609-depsecdef0463html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Woodward Bob Plan of Attack New York Simon and Schuster 2004
Yaphe Judith S ldquoTurbulent Transition in Iraq Can It Succeedrdquo Strategic Forum no 208 (June 2004) 1-8
Yardley Michael T E Lawrence A Biography New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000
ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavianhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo Available from httpwwwossog orgyugoshymainlandhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Zoroya Gregg ldquoAfghan duty offers ultimate in unconventional warfarerdquo USA Today 12 April 2004 Available from httpglobalspecopscomultunconventional warfare html Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
194
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
Combined Arms Research Library US Army Command and General Staff College 250 Gibbon Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-2314
LTC (Retired) Joseph G D Babb Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC (Retired) Mark Lauber Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
James Corum PhD Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC Chadwick W Clark Director Combined Arms Center Special Operation Forces Education 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
John C Knie Colonel SF Director of Training and Doctrine US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School Fort Bragg NC 28310
195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
1 Certification Date 16 June 2006
2 Thesis Author Major D Jones
3 Thesis Title Ending the Debate Unconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matter
4 Thesis Committcc Mcmbcrs dwltampb Signatures ylamplzampamp
5 Distribution Statement See distribution statements A-X on reverse then circle appropriate distribution statement letter code below
O B C D E F X SEE EXPLANATION OF CODES ON REVERSE
If your thesis does not fit into any of the above categories or is classified you must coordinate with the classified section at CARL
6 Justification Justification is required for any distribution other than described in Distribution Statement A All or part of a thesis may justify distribution limitation See limitation justification statements 1-10 on reverse then list below the statement(s) that applies (apply) to your thesis and corresponding chapterssections and pages Follow sample format shown below
EXAMPLE Limitation Justification Statement 1 ChapterISection I Page(s)
Direct Military Support (10) Critical Technology (3) Administrative Operational Use (7)
Chapter 3 Section 4 Chapter 2
I I I
12 31 13-32
Fill in limitation justification for your thesis below
Limitation Justification Statement ChapterSection Pagels)
7 MMAS Thesis Authors Signature f
STATEMENT A Approved for public release distribution is unlimited (Documents with this statement may be made available or sold to the general public and foreign nationals)
STATEMENT B Distribution authorized to US Government agencies only (insert reason and date ON REVERSE OF THIS FORM) Currently used reasons for imposing this statement include the following
1 Foreign Government Information Protection of foreign information
2 Proprietary Information Protection of proprietary information not owned by the US Government
3 Critical Technology Protection and control of critical technology including technical data with potential military application
4 Test and Evaluation Protection of test and evaluation of commercial production or military hardware
5 Contractor Performance Evaluation Protection of information involving contractor performance evaluation
6 Premature Dissemination Protection of information involving systems or hardware from premature dissemination
7 AdministrativeOperational Use Protection of information restricted to official use or for administrative or operational purposes
8 Software Documentation Protection of software documentation - release only in accordance with the provisions of DoD Instruction 79302
9 Specific Authority Protection of information required by a specific authority
10 Direct Military Support To protect export-controlled technical data of such military significance that release for purposes other than direct support of DoD-approved activities may jeopardize a US military advantage
STATEMENT C Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and their contractors (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT D Distribution authorized to DoD and US DoD contractors only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT E Distribution authorized to DoD only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10
STATEMENT F Further dissemination only as directed by (controlling DoD office and date) or higher DoD authority Used when the DoD originator determines that information is subject to special dissemination limitation specified by paragraph 4-505 DoD 52001-R
STATEMENT X Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and private individuals of enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical data in accordance with DoD Directive 523025 (date) Controlling DoD office is (insert)
197
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In the fall of 2003 I began developing ideas presented in this thesis while trying
to explain the doctrinal differences between unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense to twelve of my student officers enrolled in the third phase of the Special Forces
Officer Qualification Course It is hard to believe three years later that this project has
finally reached fruition This thesis would not have been possible without the support of
the following
First God for all the blessings He has provided me especially my awesome wife
and amazing children that have suffered the most in the last year while I worked on this
project Since we are a Special Forces family I will observe operational security and not
mention them by name but I want to thank them for their patience love and sacrifices
over the last year My wife deserves special recognition for the long hours of proofshy
reading She now knows more about UW and FID than many of my contemporaries
Bottom line is that without God and family I would not be where I am today
Second my heartfelt thanks goes to my thesis committee--Geoff Babb Dr James
Corum and Mark Lauber Thank you for your diligence patience and long hours reading
and providing comments on this lengthy thesis Without your help and expertise in this
subject area this thesis would not have been realized
Third thanks to my staff group advisor instructor team and oral comprehensive
exam committee members for their outstanding support and professionalism Tim
McKane Dr James Willbanks LTC James Beck Major David Stephan Dennis
Hanrahan and Major Cory Peterson I would also like to thank the highly dedicated
iv
CGSC special operation detachment instructors led by LTC Chadwick Clark for their
continued support and encouragement throughout the year I could not have been blessed
with a better group of instructors
Fourth I would also like to thank my Special Forces mentors whom have had the
most profound effect on my understanding of this topic--LTC Mark Grdovic LTC
Jonathan Burns Colonel Kenneth Tovo and Major General Sidney Shachnow I would
also be remiss if I did not thank all of the noncommissioned officers whom I have been
blessed to learn from since I have been in Special Forces especially my old team
members and assistant small group instructors The experiences shared with these
unconventional warriors and leaders have allowed me to put my real world experiences
into context and develop the theories presented in the thesis
Finally I would like to thank all who endured my ranting and raving on this
subject over the last three years especially other Special Forces officers former students
fellow small group instructors staff group 5B and a number of unsuspecting targets of
opportunity who received the verbal executive summary of this project whenever one of
them ventured into my range fan Each one of these opportunities to express the points of
this thesis helped me form my arguments
De Oppresso Liber
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ACRONYMS ix
ILLUSTRATIONS x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Research Questions11 Assumptions11 Limitations 11 Scope and Delimitations 12 Significance of this Study 13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE22
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine23 Introduction23 The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries25 The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors 28 Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation29 Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History31 Special Operations Executive Summary35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare36 Introduction36 Special Operation Branch 38 The Jedburghs 39 Detachment 101 40 The Operational Groups42 Office of Strategic Services Summary47
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations 49 Introduction49 The Three Disciplines 52 Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability 55
vi
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations 56 Eastern Europe 1949-195657 Korea60 Tibet 63 Cuba 64 Laos65 Vietnam67 Nicaragua 69 Afghanistan and the Soviets70 Central Intelligence Agency Summary73
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 73 Doctrinal Developments 73 The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model96
South Vietnam 100 North Vietnam 102 El Salvador104 Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan107 Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines 109 Operation Iraqi Freedom110 Summary 114
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS115
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare115 Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition 115 Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare120
Foreign Internal Defense126 Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition 126
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 128 Logical Lines of Operations129
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation 131 Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 134 Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 137
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 138 The Transition Curve Model142
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq 145 Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model149
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 151 Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency 160 Summary 161
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 163
vii
Conclusion 163 Recommendations165 Areas for Further Research 171
GLOSSARY 173
BIBLIOGRAPHY178
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 196
viii
ACRONYMS
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
COI Coordinator of Information
CORDS Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support
DET 101 Detachment 101
DOD Department of Defense
FMLN Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front
JP Joint Publication
MI6 Military Intelligence (UK)
NORSO Norwegian Special Operations
OG Operational Groups
OPATT Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams
OSS Office of Strategic Services
SO Special Operation
SOE Special Operations Executive
US United States
USASFC United States Army Special Forces Command
VCI Viet Cong Infrastructure
ix
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model 96
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines132
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation 136
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model137
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model144
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)146
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) 148
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed150
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model160
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a definition is to clarify The term or concept in question should be more understandable once its definition has been presented Generally the ideal definition should leave little or no room for ambiguity1
David Charters and Maurice Tugwell
If you spend more than 30 seconds debating what it means it isnrsquot clear enough for the users2
Clinton JAncher III
Since its birth in 1952 Special Forces have had the exclusive responsibility
within the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct unconventional warfare Joint
Publication (JP) 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms defines unconventional warfare as
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion3
1David Charters and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz (Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984) 29
2Clinton J Ancker III Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing (Fort Leavenworth KS Director of the Armyrsquos Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005)
3Department of Defense Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet accessed on 16 December 2005
1
Although not clear in this definition doctrinally and historically unconventional
warfare is ldquothe culmination of successful [military] efforts to organize and mobilize the
civil populous against a hostile government or an occupying powerrdquo4 United States (US)
Army unconventional warfare doctrine also has an addition not found in the joint
definition stating that this operation is ldquopredominantly conducted through by and with
indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo5 A comparison between the current unconventional
warfare definition and the definition from 1955 highlights how little has changed in over
fifty years
[O]perations conducted in time of war behind enemy lines by predominantly indigenous personnel responsible in varying degrees to friendly control or direction in furtherance of military and political objectives It consists of the interrelated fields of guerrilla warfare evasion and escape and subversion against hostile states6
US unconventional warfare has historically been used in one of two ways either
to support or shape the environment for the larger conventional campaign or as a
unilateral effort generally conducted covertly7 Examples of unconventional warfare
shaping for conventional military operations are well known such as the Allied support
to the resistances in France the Balkans and the Far East in World War II and most
recently in Northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom Unilateral unconventional
4Department of the Army FM 3-0520 Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 26 June 2001) 2-1
5Ibid This version of the definition is also used in FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 1-1
6Colonel (ret) Aaron Bank From OSS to Green Beret The Birth of Special Forces (New York NY Pocket Books 1986) 179
7FM 3-0520 2-3
2
warfare efforts have been much less well known mostly due to their covert nature but
include operations behind the Iron Curtain to develop resistance capabilities in
Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s and again in Afghanistan after the events of
11 September during Operation Enduring Freedom
The unilateral examples cited above have primarily been conducted by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) which also maintains a covert unconventional warfare
capability referred to as paramilitary operations or special operations8 As William
Daugherty notes that for the CIA a special operation ldquomeans paramilitary operations-shy
military-type actions utilizing non-military personnel [indigenous personnel or
surrogates]rdquo9 The CIA has generally been responsible for conducting covert
unconventional warfare as a tool of foreign policy when the president wants to have
plausible deniability especially during peacetime Covert operations are ldquoplanned and
executed to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor A covert
operation differs from a clandestine operation in that the emphasis is placed on
concealment of the operationrdquo10 In times of conflict when military forces are employed
the DOD takes the lead responsibility for unconventional warfare The CIA conducted
numerous covert paramilitary activities during the Cold War against communist regimes
and most recently shaped the environments in Afghanistan and Iraq for Special Forces to
conduct successful unconventional warfare
8William J Daugherty Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004) 15 84-85
9Ibid 15
10FM 3-0520 Glossary 7-8
3
In the early 1960rsquos President Kennedy called upon Special Forces to use its
unconventional warfare skills and knowledge developed to support an insurgency to
defeat the Cold War communist-sponsored insurgencies or wars of national revolutions
threatening to expand globally if not checked This new mission was called foreign
internal defense and was successfully prosecuted by Special Forces teams at the tactical
and operational levels of the Vietnam War JP 1-02 defines foreign internal defense as
ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action
programs taken by another government to free and protect its society from subversion
lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo11 JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes foreign internal defense into three types of
support
Indirect--focuses on building strong national infrastructure through economic and military capabilities that contribute to self sufficiencyrdquo12
Direct (not involving combat operations)--the involvement of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populous or military13
Combat--the use of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populace or military14
As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories represent significantly different levels of US
diplomatic and military commitment and riskrdquo15
11JP 1-02
12Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
13Ibid
14Ibid
4
At the same time President Kennedy tasked the CIA with the same mission but
conducted clandestinely The clandestine foreign internal defense mission would later be
known as ldquospecial activitiesrdquo16 As William Daugherty explains
The CIArsquos paramilitary cadre is most often employed in training foreign military and security forces however training that falls under the rubric of special activities but which requires the support of the Agencyrsquos covert action infrastructure--rather than actual combat operations--was by far the most common mission of the paramilitary element17
Even though the CIA mission presented here seems confusing the covert finding is the
constraining document that provides the detailed operational limitations and political
goals alleviating any confusion
By the end of Vietnam Special Forces had also conducted special reconnaissance
against the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos and Cambodia and direct action in the highly-
publicized raid on the Son Tay prison camp in an attempt to rescue American prisoners of
war which would later be added to Special Forces doctrine as personnel recovery With
the strategic military and political failure of Vietnam Special Forces tried to distance
itself from foreign internal defense which carried with it the stigma of Vietnam At the
same time Special Forces all but forgot about its unconventional warfare roots because
the likelihood of successfully conducting unconventional warfare in the nuclear age
seemed remote Instead Special Forces focused on less politically-charged missions
such as special reconnaissance and direct action which both fit nicely in the operations
plans of the Cold War
15Ibid I-4
16Daugherty 85
17Ibid 84-85
5
In the 1980s Special Forces conducted foreign internal defense to defeat an
insurgency in El Salvador and Honduras and provided support to the CIArsquos covert
unconventional warfare efforts to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras
in Nicaragua All of these operations proved successful although Special Forces had only
been utilized in a supporting role during the two unconventional warfare campaigns The
success in El Salvador began a string of successes for Special Forces conducting special
reconnaissance direct action and foreign internal defense in places such as Panama
Desert Storm Bosnia and Kosovo adding other missions such as combat search and
rescue and coalition support to its repertoire as well By 2001 few thought that
unconventional warfare would ever be conducted again and there were numerous studies
to determine the relevancy of unconventional warfare in future conflicts18 In the summer
of 2001 senior Special Forces leadership attempted to ensure continued Special Forces
viability by placing all Special Forces missions under a broad category of unconventional
warfare These included not only Special Forcesrsquo missions to date but now included
counterproliferation combating terrorism and the other collateral activities such as
humanitarian demining operations and coalition support19 However their efforts would
be disrupted by the terrorist attacks of 11 September
Less than two years later Special Forces had successfully prosecuted two
unconventional warfare campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan
using indigenous forces instead of massive conventional formations and the other a
18Colonel Michael R Kershner ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84
19FM 3-0520 2-1
6
shaping operation in northern Iraq using the indigenous Kurdish insurgents to fix thirteen
of twenty Iraqi divisions north of Baghdad lessening the burden on the conventional
combined forces land component commandrsquos southern invasion force Now in the
postconflict phase of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Special Forces should
doctrinally be conducting foreign internal defense helping the indigenous government
forces to defeat internal threats in an attempt to secure the environment and allow the
political processes to develop
To date however Special Forces have been primarily employed in unilateral
actions focused on ldquokill or capturerdquo missions This unilateral employment has all but
negated the force multiplying capability inherent in Special Forces operations through
training and advising indigenous government security forces Instead the conventional
Army has taken on the majority of the training and advising roles in both theaters
Although Special Forces touts working by with and through indigenous forces as its
core competency Special Forces found ways to remove itself from the burden of training
and advising indigenous conventional units in Iraq and Afghanistan Using the Global
War on Terrorism as a reason a similar pattern of passing missions to Marines or
contractors is evident in other foreign internal defense operations such as the Georgian
train and equip mission and the African Crisis Response Initiative now referred to as
ACOTA or African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance20
20GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 available from
7
As of the spring of 2006 the debate continues throughout the Special Forces
community as to whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
are still applicable in todayrsquos contemporary operating environment and future conflicts
Studies being conducted seem to continue to suggest that current unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine and definitions need to be ldquotransformedrdquo for a new
application against non-state actors This is a new twist on an old debate However all of
these studies seem to gloss over the fact that in Afghanistan and Iraq unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense have been the primary operations being conducted
by Special Forces
The success of these operations with regards to Special Forcesrsquo efforts is due to
the application of legacy unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
Therefore current attempts to redefine and apply these doctrinal operations in an effort to
ldquotransformrdquo them for the current operations against non-state actors such as al Qarsquoida and
its associated movements have been difficult for one simple reason--historically and
doctrinally unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are only applicable to a
single nation state not a non-state entity21 These operations were never meant for
anything other than supporting insurgencies and or defeating insurgencies within a nation
httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraraycongress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2005
21Spelling convention for al Qarsquoida used throughout thesis comes from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet accessed on 6 February 2006
8
state and thus have proven themselves to be just as applicable today as in the days of their
inception
In both Iraq and Afghanistan unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
have been operationally linked as never before At some point in time during both of
these operations combat operations shifted to stability operations and with this shift
Special Forces should have changed mission orientation from unconventional warfare to
foreign internal defense However few within the special operations community
identified this transition and continued to define Special Forces operations in both
theaters as unconventional warfare The major obstacle to understanding this linkage is
the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be high-intensity combat theaters nothing like
the low-intensity or traditional peacetime foreign internal defense missions in theaters
like Columbia Thailand or the hundreds of other countries that Special Forces conduct
foreign internal defense as part of the geographic combatant commanderrsquos theater
security cooperation plan
The last historical example of a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense was in France the Balkans and Southeast Asia at the end of World War
II when the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and British Special Operations
Executive (SOE) conducted operations to weaken the occupying Axis powers However
even these case studies are flawed because there was almost no US involvement in the
postwar stability operations in these countries after World War II Germany and France
were the only two countries that the US conducted full-scale stability security transition
and reconstruction operations but since there were no viable resistance organizations for
the OSS and the SOE to support they are of no use to this study In the countries in
9
which OSS and SOE had operated the resistance apparatus was either demobilized-shy
disarmed paid and returned to civilian status or turned over the newly re-established
governments Therefore no relationships between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense were established which led to ldquodemobilizationrdquo becoming part of the
legacy of US unconventional warfare doctrine
Current foreign internal defense doctrine was developed out of Special Forces
experience from communist wars of national liberation in Vietnam and Latin America as
well as US nation building efforts in countries like Haiti Bosnia and Kosovo Special
Forces did not conduct unconventional warfare--US sponsored insurgency--during these
operations even though its mode of operation may have been by through and with
indigenous forces
Understanding the distinction between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense will be extremely important with the adoption of pre-emption and regime
removal as doctrinal concepts The US military has to be ready for the same kinds of
operations that it has observed since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom where there are unconventional warfare efforts in pre-conflict
and conflict phases which then transition to foreign internal defense operations in the
postconflict phases and finally return to peacetime engagement In developing future
major campaign and operational plans understanding the roles of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as well as how and when these two missions are related will
be extremely important for the planner A solid doctrinal model for this relationship may
be the basis for joint and interagency coordination throughout the campaign
10
Research Questions
The primary research question this thesis will answer is if unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as currently defined are still applicable to current and future
Special Forcesrsquo operations To answer the primary question three secondary questions
must be answered what are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and
how are they related In answering the secondary question of what unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense are similar tertiary questions must be answered for
each what is the doctrinal and operational history of Special Forces and CIA with respect
to these two missions what is their application against non-state actors and global
insurgency and should they be redefined With regards to the secondary question on the
interrelation of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense the tertiary
questions are Is there an identifiable transition point between the two and can a
relationship be modeled
Assumptions
The major assumption of this research project is that the simple meanings of
words can have a significant effect on the operational employment of Special Forces and
are not just a matter of semantics Another assumption is that senior Special Forces
leaders will be willing to address the findings of this project if they are contrary to current
thoughts and frameworks
Limitations
This thesis is written as an unclassified manuscript using public information that
is available through the Combined Arms Research Library and other electronic and
11
internet databases that are generally available to the public Although the research may be
in the classified and unclassified realm only unclassified materials and references will be
used in the thesis All references will be listed in the bibliography for further research of
the reader
Case studies used in the research and presentation of this thesis will be studied
through secondary sources and will not involve visits to the battlefield or areas of
operations due to lack of dedicated funding for such study In case studies related to
Kosovo or the efforts in Northern Iraq first hand knowledge may be relied upon and
checked with other sources
Scope and Delimitations
This study will assess current unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine of the US Army Special Forces and joint doctrine This study will also address
the current missions that are being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan and compare them
to other unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense missions from history
Classified missions or units will not be discussed by name although unclassified terms
for these missions and elements may be included This may lead to confusion for some
readers that lack special operations background and therefore will be avoided as much
as possible This study will also describe joint and interagency relationships necessary for
Special Forces employment during unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
This study will not describe in detail the other core tasks of Special Forces unless they
have a direct bearing on some finding or recommendation This study will use Special
Forces throughout due to the historical significance of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense to Special Forces The Special Forces branch is the proponent for 12
unconventional warfare doctrine as well However special operations forces could be
used interchangeably where Special Forces are used to describe operations from 1990 to
today
Significance of this Study
The current trend in the Special Forces community is to use unconventional
warfare as an overarching term to describe any operation conducted by through or with
indigenous or surrogate forces even operations that are clearly not aimed at the
overthrow or removal of a hostile government or occupying power Some reasons for
using the term unconventional warfare are to ensure a niche mission for special
operations forces it is a popular term today for the civilian leadership who view
unconventional warfare as the opposite of conventional warfare fitting nicely into the
Global War on Terrorism and a broad definition would seem to un-constrain Special
Forces operations since all missions could invariably be called unconventional and gain
larger political and budgetary support The last point was evident in the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review that recommended a significant increase in special
operations forces to prosecute the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo campaign22
Based on Special Forcesrsquo contemporary experiences the continued
misunderstanding of unconventional warfare and the resulting attempts to redefine it as
an overarching term may have unforeseen and unanticipated consequences on todayrsquos
battlefield and in future campaigns For example the rules of engagement in ldquoclassicrdquo
22Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report (6 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
13
unconventional warfare aimed at overthrowing or removing a government is much less
restrictive than the rules of engagement in a foreign internal defense mission23 In the
latter mission the rules of engagement are very restrictive Thus using unconventional
warfare as an overarching term could have ramifications in places where Special Forcesrsquo
efforts are purely to train and advise a host nation to deny sanctuary to its enemies In this
case the restrictions keep US military efforts from being directly employed such as in
Colombia The rules of engagement are directly tied to the most important word when
dealing with operations that require the support of the local populations and international
opinion legitimacy
For the US to support an insurgency or to support a government fighting an
insurgency the question of legitimacy is primary According to Timothy J Lomperis ldquoan
insurgency is a political challenge to a regimersquos authority by an organized and violent
questioning of the regimersquos claims to legitimacyrdquo24 Based on this definition when the
US is conducting unconventional warfare in support of an insurgency it is also
challenging the legitimacy of the regime and may be using conventional military means
as well When the US is supporting a government using foreign internal defense then it is
supporting the claims of legitimacy of the host nation Based on the recent experiences in
Iraq and Afghanistan it is obvious that at some point when the transition from conflict to
postconflict or unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The US military
23Major Peter McCollaum Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
24Timothy J Lomperis From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam (Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996) 33
14
must constrain its use of military action to legitimize its efforts and those of the new
government Not understanding this leads to the misuse of its firepower-centric
conventional military capabilities that ultimately decrease ones legitimacy This point is
highlighted in JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal
Defense
The nature of US tactical participation in HN[Host Nation] internal conflicts requires judicious and prudent rules of engagement (ROE) and guidelines for the application of force Inappropriate destruction and violence attributed to US forces may easily reduce the legitimacy and sovereignty of the supported government In addition these incidents may be used by adversaries to fuel anti-American sentiments and assist the cause of the opposition25
This is further evidenced by the outcry over the use of ldquotorturerdquo to gather intelligence the
environment has changed and legitimacy may be more important for long-lasting support
than the short-term gains of torture
The purpose of this thesis is to clarify the doctrine and attempt to end the nearly
fifty-five year old debate determine the relationship of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense and determine what the application of these two missions will be
in the Global War on Terrorism In this ldquolong warrdquo as Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld calls it understanding exactly what kind of operation is being undertaken and
the environment will be critical for maintaining legitimacy of US efforts and those of
friendly insurgencies and governments to maintain local regional and international
support for the Global War on Terrorism
25JP 3-071 I-14
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are numerous sources available on both the topics of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense These sources include books professional civilian
journal articles military doctrinal manuals and military journals specifically Special
Warfare magazine produced by the United States John F Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School The use of unconventional warfare in these publications runs the
gambit from describing support to insurgency to the use of special operations forces
conducting unilateral operations In some cases counterinsurgency is also described as a
component of unconventional warfare The literature review shows that there is obviously
a lot of confusion on terms and definitions related to unconventional warfare
The most current information on unconventional warfare and Special Forces
operations can be found in three different manuals The first is US Army Field Manual
(FM) 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations (1999) the second is Change 1 FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations (2004) and third FM 3-05201 Special Forces
Unconventional Warfare Operations (2003) All three manuals use the unconventional
warfare definition found in the 2001 Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Currently the final draft of the newest FM
3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare is being reviewed Due to its final
draft status and classification none of the newest changes will be directly addressed in
this thesis There is currently no joint doctrine for unconventional warfare
16
Some of the useful historical unconventional warfare related documents are the
FM 31-20 series of manuals (1961 and 1965) These manuals are the last ldquountaintedrdquo
versions prior to the lessons and doctrine from Special Forces involvement in Vietnam
being incorporated into doctrine The Special Forces manuals after 1965 increasingly
show the effects of mission creep and a graying of unconventional warfare and
counterinsurgency It was out of this confusion that todayrsquos broad unconventional warfare
definition arose
In the summer of 2001 the United States Army Special Forces Command
(USASFC) completed a study called Unconventional Warfare 2020 The aim of the study
was to define Special Forcesrsquo future concepts and ensure relevancy for the force as the
Army was concurrently conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates as part of
Joint Vision 2020 now referred to as ldquotransformationrdquo Colonel Michael Kershner
former Deputy Commander of USASFC summarized the findings of this study in a
series of articles such as the one that appeared in the Winter 2001 edition of Special
Warfare titled ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military
Operationsrdquo However the events of 11 September would put these efforts on hold In
2003 the newest version of next FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare
Operations was published This version should have captured the findings from the
Unconventional Warfare 2020 study but in fact they had been lost To date they have not
been addressed with the focus now turned towards the application of unconventional
warfare against non-state actors
Foreign internal defense references are even more plentiful and the term more
commonly understood The volume of work on this subject is due to the renewed interest
17
in the subject based on the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the
publication of the DOD Directive 300005 titled Military Support for Stability Security
Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) However there are few works that address
foreign internal defense in a high-intensity environment Others only describe foreign
internal defense as training missions in support of host nation governments
There are two excellent foreign internal defense manuals FM 21-20-3 Foreign
Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces published in
1994 and the Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense which was updated in early 2004 These manuals are the
clearest and most concise documents dealing with foreign internal defense This is most
likely due to the fact that foreign internal defense doctrine is much more black and white
than unconventional warfare doctrine An extremely detailed historical study of the
development of US counterinsurgency doctrine leading up to the formal foreign internal
defense doctrine can be found in Larry Cablersquos book Conflict of Myths The Development
of American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War published in 1986
There are no sources that address any type of transition between the
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense There are however some
references to the transition or termination point between conflict and postconflict
operations of conventional forces that may be applicable to defining the unconventional
warfare to foreign internal defense transition The most significant problem with these
studies is that they were written prior to 11 September and focus on the termination of
combat operations versus the termination of hostilities or the return to peacetime
engagement
18
Special Warfare magazine also provides a sense of past and current trends of
understanding of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense from the
perspective of Special Forces concept and doctrinal development The large body of
articles in Special Warfare highlights the confusion surrounding unconventional warfare
The most recent example of senior Special Forces leader misunderstanding
unconventional warfare is found in the May 2004 Special Warfare in which now retired
Major General Geoffrey C Lambert former commanding general of the Special Warfare
Center and School explains that ldquoSpecial Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare
which includes counterinsurgency [authorsrsquo emphasis] and guerrilla warfarerdquo
A more recent issue April 2005 had an article titled ldquoOperation White Star A
UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo by Major Dean S Newman in which he
describes the use of unconventional warfare to fight insurgencies and terrorism His
premise is based on his historical analysis of the White Star program a clandestine CIA
special activity program to support indigenous Laotian Hmong tribesmen to disrupt North
Vietnamese Ho Chi Minh Trail and sanctuary areas inside of Laos While commonly
referred to as an unconventional warfare program by many historians and authors White
Star was actually a clandestine foreign internal defense operation using an indigenous
element to fight an insurgency when the host nation government did not want to get
involved The article is fraught with contradictions and misuse of terms and ideas Had
Major Newman approached this topic from the point of view that the North Vietnamese
were ldquooccupyingrdquo these Laotian sanctuary areas and that the Laotian government was
unable to regain control he may have been able to substantiate his argument that White
19
Star was an unconventional warfare operation However his argument that
unconventional warfare can be used against an insurgency is still an oxymoron
One of the best sources on the future of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense is Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-3-520
Military Operations Future Force Concepts for Army Special Operations Forces dated
14 January 2004 This pamphlet provides the conceptual foundation for the
transformation current Special Forces operations into what is referred to as full spectrum
Special Forces operations In the full spectrum Special Forces operations concept
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are two of the three major mission
sets This is a departure from the Unconventional Warfare 2020 findings since it once
talks specifically of two separate missions unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense This publication was not published by the doctrine branches of the Special
Warfare Center and School which may account for its significant departure from the
mainstream of Special Forces doctrine published by the Special Warfare Center
Historical references for unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are
mostly detailed studies of the history of Special Forces An example of this is Thomas
Adamsrsquo US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional
Warfare Susan Marquisrsquo Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations
Forces and most recently Hy Rothsteinrsquos Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of
Unconventional Warfare published in 2006 The best book for understanding the original
intent of unconventional warfare is found in Colonel Aaron Bankrsquos autobiography From
OSS to Green Berets Bank who recently died at the age of 101 was known as the
ldquofather of Special Forcesrdquo His book describes in detail how he worked on developing the
20
Special Forces in the early 1950s This is one of the few primary sources from one of the
original authors of Special Forces doctrine With respect to foreign internal defense
primary sources Charles Simpson provides an excellent account of the first thirty years
of Special Forces in his book Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years
There have also been numerous Command and General Staff College Master of
Military Art and Science and School of Advanced Military Studies thesis papers on both
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and their application across the
spectrum of operations One School of Advanced Military Studiesrsquo thesis by Major Duke
C Shienle provides some insight on the use of indigenous forces developed for
unconventional warfare in the postconflict phase and uses ldquounconventional operationsrdquo to
highlight the overarching use of indigenous forces in both missions He also suggests
renaming the final phase of unconventional warfare from demobilization to postconflict
to highlight the use of indigenous forces in both environments
Review of the literature indicates there are no definitive studies that answer the
questions proposed here Indeed most of the literature on these topics have not provided
suitable definitions of unconventional warfare and continue to demonstrate a lack of
common understanding or agreement as to what unconventional warfare is With respect
to foreign internal defense numerous articles have been written on this subject but none
have presented options for the employment of Special Forces found in this thesis and no
articles have been written on trying to redefine foreign internal defense Finally no
articles have been written that have tried to explain the relationship between
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
21
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE
The purpose of this research is to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense as traditionally defined are still applicable to Special Forces operations
in the contemporary and future operating environments This chapter will begin to answer
the tertiary research question ldquoWhat is the doctrinal and operational history of the
Special Forces and the CIA with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defenserdquo This will be accomplished using three research methods doctrinal
development comparison historical comparison and case studies
The doctrinal development and historical comparisons will be intertwined due to
the nature of this subject in which doctrine and historical developments happened
concurrently This study will chronicle the doctrinal development of US unconventional
warfare from the British development of this concept prior to World War II to todayrsquos
operations The comparison will be made in relation to the SOE the OSS the CIA and
finally the US Army Special Forces This construct was chosen because it allowed the
chronological development of unconventional warfare doctrine and practice from the
original concepts developed by the forefathers of the British SOE to the establishment of
the American OSS and the growing and employment pains of unconventional warfare in
World War II
The study will then focus on the sometimes rough transition from the OSS to the
CIA and the history of the agencyrsquos use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense up to the events of 11 September As for the Special Forces the study will
22
analyze the history of Special Forces and with respect to unconventional warfare and
later foreign internal defense from the initial concepts for a military unconventional
warfare capability in the early 1950 to the present
Each historical analysis will be summarized with respect to the type of operation-shy
unconventional warfare or foreign internal defense the signature of the operation--overt
to covert the operational relationship--decisive or shaping and finally the operations
approach--indirect direct and combat--the same support pattern from foreign internal
defense doctrine Lastly in the unconventional warfare cases an analysis will also be
made as to the mode of transition of the resistance forces whether they were
demobilized turned over to the government immediately or if US efforts or ties to the
organization were stopped with no transitory event
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
Introduction
World War I witnessed the first modern use of unconventional warfare as an
economy of force operation by both the British and Germans in peripheral campaigns
outside of continental Europe In essence unconventional warfare is the support to an
indigenous insurgent or resistance group aimed at overthrowing a constituted government
or an occupying power respectively Unconventional warfare can be used to support to
resistance elements also known as partisans resisting an occupier as an economy of
force during major operations by forcing the commitment of enemy conventional forces
to guarding rear areas instead of being employed on the front lines
The primary benefit of unconventional warfare is the disproportionate resources
that a government or an occupier is forced to commit against a relatively weak opponent 23
The insurgent if employed correctly maintains the initiative by deciding the time and
place of its attacks In other words they never conduct an operation unless success is
likely or outweighs the risk to the insurgent movement For the hostile government or
occupier large amounts of resources including personnel money and equipment are
necessary to secure lines of communication key facilities and capabilities and key
terrain When in support of a conventional military effort these enemy resources are kept
from being deployed to main conventional battle areas By World War II unconventional
warfare had become a great threat to modern armies because of their ldquoabsolute
dependence on industrial and economic bases in their rear and on lines of
transportationrdquo26
During World War I unconventional warfare was used by both the British and the
Germans The young British Captain (later Colonel) T E Lawrence an advisor to Sherif
Feisal the future King of Iraq used the Arab Army to help the British defeat the Turks27
In East Africa the German Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck commanded a
guerrilla army of 14000 which successfully tied down the efforts of 160000 British
Portuguese and Belgian troops28 Both of these efforts were successful not due to the
tactical outcome of their efforts to support partisan forces but at the operational and
strategic level by diverting enemy forces from other fronts Both of these efforts proved
26F O Miksche Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements (London Faber and Faber Limited) 35
27Michael Yardley T E Lawrence A Biography (New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000) 83-84
28Robert B Asprey War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History (New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994) 174
24
the concept of supporting indigenous resistance elements but given the scale and
devastation of World War I especially on the Western Front the British failed to initially
assimilate these lessons into their doctrine assuming that the next great power war would
not occur for at least ten years29
During the interwar years unconventional warfare was virtually forgotten until
the rise of Adolph Hitler energized the study of unconventional warfare by the British
These studies began in 1938 when Adolph Hitler annexed Austria and the British began
to look seriously at the possibility of another war against Germany The British War
Office driven by the impending German threat to Europe tasked individuals each with
varying degrees of experience in irregular warfare to study irregular capabilities and
operations as well as to develop operational concepts for the employment of such forces
To their credit they produced extraordinary results considering the complexity of these
types of operations As a result of these studies the British developed the SOE in midshy
1940
The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries
One of the first individuals to be tasked with the detailed study of unconventional
warfare concepts was Major Lawrence Grand assigned under Admiral ldquoQuexrdquo Sinclair
the head of the British Secret or Special Intelligence Service to look at ldquothe theory of
secret offensives how could enemies be attacked otherwise than by the usual military
meansrdquo30 Simultaneously other officers were given similar tasks and as happens with
29M R D Foot The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 (London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984) 9
30Ibid 10-11 25
projects surrounded in secrecy none of them knew of the parallel efforts From this
emerged another unconventional warfare visionary Lieutenant Colonel J C F Holland
who became interested in ldquoirregular warfarerdquo based on his experiences in Ireland and his
first-hand knowledge of the T E Lawrencersquos operations against the Turks As M R D
Foot describes Hollandrsquos studies
[He] collected reports on Boer tactics in the South African war on Lawrence and his partners on guerilla activities in the Russian civil war the Spanish Civil War the struggle between China and Japan the smouldering [sic] Arab-Jewish conflicts in Palestine and of course on Ireland31
Holland became an advocate of irregular warfare which at the time included guerrilla
warfare and psychological operations and had sufficient backing by the deputy director
of British Intelligence that his ideas would become the foundation of the yet-to-beshy
formed SOE
Another visionary that would tie all of these studies together was Sir Colin
Gubbins Described by S J Lewis as ldquoone of the most important personalities of the
SOErdquo Gubbins would later rise to distinction as the commander of the SOE32 Gubbins
wrote two field manuals or pamphlets The Art of Guerrilla Warfare and Partisan
Leadersrsquo Handbook both of which would become the core training documents for future
SOE operatives33
The final visionary and a man with sufficient knowledge and political influence to
provide the strategic vision for an organization such as the SOE was Dr Hugh Dalton
31Ibid 11-12
32S J Lewis Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 (Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991) 3
33Ibid
26
who was the Minister of Economic Warfare in 1940 After a meeting in mid-July of
1940 aimed at trying to decide who would head an organization for conducting irregular
warfare Dalton wrote a letter that laid out the intent of such an organization and a basic
strategy for its employment As Dalton explained ldquoWe have got to organize movements
in enemy-occupied territory comparable to the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland [and] to
the Chinese Guerillas now operating against Japanrdquo34 He described this organization
as a ldquodemocratic internationalrdquo and suggested that it ldquomust use many different methods
including industrial and military sabotage labour agitation and strikes continuous
propaganda terrorist acts against traitors and German leaders boycotts and riotsrdquo35 He
suggested that there needed to be ldquoa new organization to co-ordinate inspire control and
assist the nationals of oppressed countries who must themselves be the direct participants
We need absolute secrecy a certain fanatical enthusiasm willingness to work with
people of different nationalities [and] complete political reliabilityrdquo36 Dalton would
become SOErsquos first chairman responsible to the chief of staff of the War Cabinet who
would provide him with the strategic intent for SOE operations He was ordered by
Churchill to ldquoset Europe ablazerdquo37
While there were others that were involved in the development of the SOE these
four visionaries stand out as the most important to the overall development of British
unconventional warfare capabilities leading up to the establishment of the SOE
34Foot 19
35Ibid
36Ibid
37Ibid 30
27
The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors
The SOErsquos most powerful weapon and what set SOE apart from MI6--the British
intelligence service whose primary mission was espionage was SOErsquos ability to organize
armed indigenous populations in occupied territories to resist their occupiers SOE
operatives were simply the facilitators to make the resistance organizations a viable threat
to the occupying forces With the advent of man-portable long-range communications
and aerial delivery systems these populations were now within reach and could be
supported by bringing material by air as well as synchronized into the larger theater
campaign What made this such a worthwhile venture was the large number of potential
recruits thanks to the interests and actions of the German occupiers As F O Miksche
explains ldquoPrecisely as in the First World War the German war aims were too vague
and indefinite to offer any attractions to the people of Europe the Germans in both
world conflicts were psychologically incapable of gaining the sympathy of the masses38
These operations would force the Germans and their allies to expend exponentially
increasing numbers of troops the farther they advanced from Germany As Miksche
notes ldquoHitlerrsquos armoured legions which were able to first surround the enemy forces
were themselves ultimately surrounded by wholly hostile populationsrdquo39 It would be
these populations that the SOE would organize train and advise
38Miksche 45
39Ibid 73
28
Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation
The conceptual applications of unconventional warfare by the British and their
actual operational successes were a testament to the capabilities of the resistance The
British SOE was originally based on small teams that would be able to organize
resistance cells and intelligence networks These SOE operatives would infiltrate into a
denied area by air boat or rat-line--a clandestine means of moving personnel overland
by different techniques They would then linkup with the indigenous resistance force and
develop the force for further operations and intelligence collection The organization for
an average network or circuit included an organizer a courier who was often a woman a
wireless operator and a sabotage instructor Once on the ground the organizers and
wireless operators if not one in the same minimized contact as much as possible because
the wireless ldquowas always the circuitrsquos weakest pointrdquo40
Initially the SOE established small clandestine cellular networks in German-
occupied territory called ldquoreseauxrdquo41 In such an environment the first step in establishing
a network was for a single agent to parachute in to pave the way for the network leader
who would follow a number of days later The initial agent was responsible for
establishing or making contact with intelligence and support networks The network
leader would then parachute in and continue to expand the network He would receive
further augmentation over time depending on his requests The network leader could also
40Foot 106
41Sir Robin Brook ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed (Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992) 69
29
request low-density specialties if necessary This was the case when Francis Suttill head
of the Prosper network in Paris requested an operator skilled at identifying and
establishing air landing zones Three months after the establishment of the Prosper
network Henri Dericourt a former French pilot arrived and was able to organize landing
areas that would receive over sixty-seven agents42
The SOE was also capable of supporting and organizing larger resistance
organizations especially in countries such as Yugoslavia where the resistance had
liberated areas in which the resistance armies could grow relatively unhindered by Axis
counterinsurgency operations This was also possible in France but security concerns
lengthened the time for these networks to grow into substantial numbers The French
Jockey network led by Francis Cammaerts developed into a large network carefully over
time Cammaerts accomplished this by establishing a true self-healing cellular network of
independent but linked groups that kept the network safe even if one of the independent
cells was disrupted This network grew to an amazing army of 10000 resistance
members that encompassed areas from Lyons to the Mediterranean coast to the Italian
and Swiss Frontiers43 In support of Normandy SOE and the US OSS formed the
Jedburghs which operated ldquounder secrecy but more exposed and apt to be in uniform
[which] was more appropriate for close cooperation with invading Allied troopsrdquo44
42ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtmInternet accessed on 2 December 2005
43Ibid
44Brook 69
30
Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History
The SOE traces its lineage directly to the British Secret Intelligence Service
better known as MI6 After MI6rsquos embarrassing loss of its intelligence networks in most
of occupied Europe to German penetration it would take Daltonrsquos SOE to reestablish
intelligence and operational networks that would support Allied operations throughout
the war A short time before the German invasion and occupation of France the chiefs of
staff of the British War Cabinet identified one British strategic objective as ldquothe creation
of widespread revolt in Germanyrsquos conquered territoriesrdquo45 To this end they realized
that an organization would have to be established to meet this goal Lord Neville
Chamberlain whom had resigned as the British Prime Minister after mishandling Hitler
at Munich was still a powerful influence as a member of the War Cabinet and signed the
founding charter of SOE on 19 July 1940 This charter established by name the SOE and
its role ldquoto co-ordinate [sic] all action by way of subversion and sabotage against the
enemy overseasrdquo46
The SOErsquos original capabilities came from the MI6 Section D EH and MI R
Section D which stood for destruction had been MI6rsquos sabotage section47 The Electra
House or EH as it was known was the site of Sir Campbell Stuartrsquos Department a
subsection of the Foreign Office of MI648 MI R stood for Military Intelligence
45Foot 18
46Ibid 20-21
47Ibid 22
48Ibid 253
31
Research49 Originally SOE was subdivided into three special operations branches SO1
SO2 and SO3 SO1 was the propaganda section but in August 1941 it was taken away
from SOE after numerous arguments and turned into its own department the Political
Warfare Executive SO2 was the active operations department while SO3 was for
planning50 There were also compartmentalized sections for each occupied country and a
liaison relationship existed with the governments in exile or representatives of
independent resistance organizations
The rivalry between the MI6 and SOE would continue throughout the war for one
simple reason as Roy Godson explains
There are invariably tensions between the [clandestine collectors and covert action officers] Clandestine collectors frequently work with sources who have political goals the same kinds of people who would also be targeted by covert action officers Covert action officersrsquo connections meanwhile are almost by definition good for the collector51
Nigel Morris describes MI6rsquos reservations about the SOE ldquo[The] Head of SIS [Secret
Intelligence Service] Sir Stewart Menzies stated repeatedly that SOE were lsquoamateur
dangerous and bogusrsquo and took it upon himself to bring massive internal pressure to bear
on the fledgling organizationrdquo52 The other ldquosecret rivalsrdquo as Foot calls them included not
only the propaganda branches but with the Admiralty over SOE maritime operations the
49Ibid 254
50Ibid 22
51Roy Godson Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence (New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004) 34-35
52Niger Morris ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940shy1946rdquo BBC History available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwo soe_printhtml Internet accessed on 1 December 2005
32
Air Ministry over air clearance and with the Royal Air Force over who was more
effective53 Morris also noted that ldquoBomber Command also despised SOE and resented
having to loan aircraft for lsquounethicalrsquo clandestine missions They wanted to win the war
by bombing Germany to its kneesrdquo54
Some of the more famous and unclassified operations that the SOE conducted
include the sabotage of the Pessac power station in France the assassination of Reinhard
Heydrich in Czechoslovakia the destruction of the Gorgopotamos rail bridge in Greece
and the destruction of the German heavy-water plant in Norway The destruction of the
Pessac power plant disrupted German U-boat operations at the port in Bordeaux The
assassination of Heydrich was carried out to counter his new posting and strong arm
counterinsurgent tactics which included round-up executions The Gorgopotamos rail
bridge linked a secondary supply route for the German effort in North Africa Finally
destruction of the heavy-water plant and associated barges crippled the Germanrsquos atomic
weapons program in 194355 The most notable resistance operations took place in support
of the D-Day landings by disrupting German reserves logistics and by providing
intelligence and guides to advancing Allied forces As Foot highlights ldquoAll told about
10000 tons of warlike stores were put into France by SOE 4000 of them before and
6000 after the landing in Normandy arms for about half a million men and a fair amount
of explosivesrdquo56
53Foot 26-27
54Morris
55Ibid
56Foot 222-3 33
The British employed about 5000 SOE operators during the war the largest
contingent going to France and Yugoslavia followed by Greece Italy Belgium Poland
Albania Abyssinia Burma Malaya Scandinavia Switzerland Hungary Romania Siam
the Dutch East Indies and lesser operations in Turkey and China57 Resistance forces
supported by the SOE while not decisive shaped the battle space by tying up numerous
Axis divisions in each country In 1942 the exiled governments of the Czechs Dutch
French Norwegians and Poles suggested to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff that
there should be a single headquarters to direct irregular operations in occupied Europe
As Foot notes ldquo[they] were each astonished to receive his reply that such a body had
already existed for almost two years [which] lsquoleft the Allied commanders breathless
SOE was so secret that its name and existence had never been disclosed to themrdquo58 The
most extreme example of these combined operations was in Poland at the maximum
reach of SOErsquos air branch Polish resistance received 485 successful drops during the
war three hundred SOE operatives and twenty-eight couriers all but five which were
Polish and 600 tons of war material59
In January of 1944 SOE and the US OSS which was modeled after the SOE in
1942 merged headquarters for the invasion called the Special Forces Headquarters In
1946 the SOE rivalry with MI6 ended with many of the SOE networks to include its
world wide communications being shutdown or transferred to MI6 under Menzies Thus
ended the SOE
57Ibid 62 172-242
58Ibid 152
59Ibid 191
34
Special Operations Executive Summary
While some would argue that SOErsquos contributions were negligible in the overall
scheme of the war they are best summed up in a letter from General Dwight D
Eisenhower to Gubbins on 31 May 1945
In no previous war and in no other theatre during this war have resistance forces been so closely harnessed to the main military effort While no final assessment of the operational value of resistance action has yet been completed I consider that the disruption of enemy rail communications the harassing of German road moves and the continual and increasing strain placed on the German war economy and internal security services throughout occupied Europe by the organized forces of resistance played a very considerable part in our complete and final victory60
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
SOE operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements It was
not covert per say since it was generally known that the Allies were conducting these
operations The SOE operations were shaping operational versus decisive supporting the
Allied efforts before and after D-Day Lastly the operational approach was for the most
part combat support with each element conducting combat advising However as the
networks grew and cadres were trained by the SOE operators as in the case of the Jockey
network the individual cells conducted operations coordinated by the Special Forces
Headquarters but not directly supervised by the SOE operatives thus the approach was
more direct than combat support
60ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo
35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare
Introduction
With Americarsquos sudden entrance into World War II the US scrambled to gain a
war footing and mobilize for war One of its weakest areas was the lack of capabilities to
gather strategic intelligence This weakness was highlighted by the failures of any
coordinated intelligence effort to provide early warning of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor in December 1941 The US looked to the British for help with establishing an
intelligence capability Roy Godson points out that for ldquoall intents and purposes US
security [was] being run for [the US] at the Presidentrsquos request by the Britishrdquo61 The
British agent of influence was William Stephenson of the British Security Coordination
who had the ear to the President in much the same way the British had influenced US
commitment in World War I Stephenson would help the legendary William ldquoWild Billrdquo
Donovan organize the first American centralized intelligence organization initially called
the Coordinator of Information (COI) on 11 July 1941 which in 1942 became the
OSS62
The COI organization had three sub-branches all focused on intelligence
gathering The Radio News Branch the Research and Analysis Branch and the Visual
Present Branch Eighty to ninety percent of the intelligence gathered by the Research and
Analysis Branch came from open sources such as its Division of Special Information
Library of Congress63 When COI was transformed into the OSS organization in 1942
61Godson 23
62Ibid
63Brook 89
36
the organizational changes were significant First the organizationrsquos main operational
elements were split into two deputy directorates the Deputy Director of Strategic
Services Operations and Deputy Director of Intelligence Services The Strategic Services
Operations were further sub-divided into six subordinate elements Special Operations
Morale Operations Maritime Units Special Projects Field Experimental Unit and
Operational Group Command The Intelligence Services was sub-divided into five units
Secret Intelligence X-2 or Counterintelligence Research and Analysis Foreign
Nationalities and Censorship and Documents
As Lawrence McDonald noted ldquoGeneral Donovan believed that the principal
contribution of OSS would be strategic intelligence which is the basis for the formation
of national policyrdquo64 It would reason then that the primary effort for collection and
analysis would fall upon the offices of the Director of Intelligence however McDonald
explains that ldquoSome of the most valuable information contributed by the OSS was
the tactical or field intelligence often provided by the Special Operations Branch (SO)
teams working behind enemy lines with resistance groupsrdquo65
Before the COI initially lacked any organization or doctrine for conducting
clandestine and covert operations it would learn from and copy a great deal of the
infrastructure already established by the British SOE and MI6 This relationship benefited
both countries For the US the benefits included intelligence training and the vast
experience base that the British had in place with MI6 and then with the SOE For the
British the US brought money and resources that the British were able to benefit from
64McDonald 93
65Ibid
37
due to its close relationship The British at first were protective of their operations and
agents in occupied Europe fearful that the Americarsquos inexperience could harm their
current operations Over time these relationships strengthened although there were still
some problems depending on political constraints or desires that one country had over the
other
Special Operation Branch
Lawrence McDonald provides an excellent description of the Special Operation
(SO) Branch ldquoThe foremost concern of SO teams and missions was liaison with the
resistance providing weapons and supplies to the indigenous underground forces
training them and planning and coordinating their sabotage with Allied operationsrdquo66
The SO was also responsible for some collateral activities including gathering
operational and strategic targeting information and for recovering downed Allied
aircrews67 SO took place in Europe and Asia with operational patterns and methods for
supporting resistance movements much like the SOE As Michael Warner highlights
ldquoThis emphasis on guerrilla warfare and sabotage fit with William Donovanrsquos vision of
an offensive in depth in which saboteurs guerrillas commandos and agents behind
enemy lines would support the armyrsquos advancerdquo68
66Ibid
67Ibid
68Michael Warner The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000) available from httpwwwciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet accessed on 4 December 2005
38
It was this common ground between the British SOE and US SO that allowed the
first bonds to be strengthened The Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff decided
that the SOE and SO would operate together an idea from which were born the
Jedburghs
The Jedburghs
The Jedburghs dropped into Belgium Holland and France on or after the
Normandy invasion to support the Allied efforts as they moved inland The Jedburghs or
Jeds were specially-trained three-man teams composed of different nationalities to assist
local resistance forces during the final weeks of German occupation Of the three men on
team one was an enlisted radio operator with the other two being officers One of the
officers was native to the country the team deployed to while the other officer was either
British SOE or American OSS The Jeds primary task was to disrupt ldquoGerman
reinforcements to the Normandy beachhead or the Allied landings in southern
Francerdquo69 They also provided valuable tactical intelligence and were able to provide
guides and security for advancing Allied units The efforts of the Jedburghs and their
resistance counterparts may have kept eight German divisions from reaching the
beachheads70
The after-action review of the Jeds highlight the growing pains in the evolution of
the integration of SO and SOE supported resistance groups within the overall
conventional campaign plan A common problem was the need to be infiltrated into the
69Lt Col Will Irvin (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 (New York NY PublicAffairs 2005) 236
70Ibid
39
operational area weeks or months early to capitalize on the full potential of resistance
groups Infiltrating on or after D-Day did not allow the Jeds enough time to train their
counterparts or develop intelligence networks Because of this they were not able operate
at their optimum capability The flow of information was lacking and timeliness of
reports affected ground operations Senior conventional commanders were unaware of
the capabilities of the Jedburghs and their resistance groups for providing accurate
intelligence guides and interpreters These operations generated so much information
that ldquothe SFHQ [Special Forces Headquarters] message centers were receiving so much
traffic that it became impossible to analyze act upon and disseminate informationrdquo71
Despite these difficulties the Jedburgh concept was as Lewis point out ldquoahead of its
time One of the more important successes for the Jedburgh operations was the
psychological impact the teams had on the citizens of occupied France [as] harbinger
of liberation and a call to actionrdquo72 With the end of the European theater the OSS was
redeployed to the Pacific and continued their exploits
Detachment 101
The most famous OSS detachment of the Burma campaign was Detachment 101
or DET 101 The Burma campaign centered around lines of communications such as the
Ledo-Burma Road which had to be secured in order to allow the Allies to reestablish
contact with the Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek The mission was to gain
control of the Ledo-Burma Road from Japanrsquos 15th Army and was as noted by Warner
71Lewis 62
72Ibid 65-66
40
ldquothe closest to realizing General Donovanrsquos original vision of lsquostrategicrsquo support to
regular combat operationsrdquo73
Donovan had been trying to establish an OSS presence in the China-Burma-India
theater and proposed a plan for using agents to sabotage Japanese rear areas Donovan
took advantage of General Stillwellrsquos lack of ldquonordquo as an opportunity to get operations
going before Stilwell could stop the mission The mission was given to a Captain who
had served under Stillwell After standing up DET 101 rushing through training of
which little was applicable to the Far East DET 101 arrived in theater only to find
Stillwell waffling on DET 101rsquos employment Stilwell did not have the resources to drive
the Japanese from the area around the north Burmese city of Myitkyina which was
hampering air operations and the completion of an alternate route Stilwell gave DET 101
the mission
After some difficulty getting into the area of operation DET 101 infiltrated and
began to transition from sabotage to guerrilla warfare but more importantly were able to
develop an extensive intelligence network that provided Stillwell with valuable
intelligence74 With less the 120 Americans at any one time DET 101 had recruited over
11000 native Kachins75 By the end of DET 101rsquos mission they rescued over 400
downed pilots and provided eighty percent of 10th Air Forcersquos targets76 In addition
73Warner
74David W Hogan Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II (Washington DC Department of the Army 1992) 99-106
75Warner
76Hogan 111
41
DET 101 had successfully developed an indigenous force that fixed two Japanese
divisions during the final Allied offensive in Burma77
The Operational Groups
Operational Groups (OGs) were developed to conduct behind-the-lines
commando operations and were composed of US Army soldiers General Donovanrsquos
concept for the OGs was based on his ldquobelief that the rich ethnic makeup of our country
would provide second generation American soldiers with language facility who could
be parachuted into enemy occupied territory to harass the enemy and encourage local
resistance organizationsrdquo78 They were designated to fight in uniform and had no
connection to the OSS thus protecting them from being shot as spies if captured79
The OGs were organized fifteen man detachments with two officers and thirteen
noncommissioned officers They were all trained in physical conditioning land
navigation night operations explosive training weapons light infantry tactics and hand
to hand fighting Two member of the OG received additional training one as a radio
operator and the other as a medic Depending on their likely area of operation the OGs
received additional training such as ski training special parachute training or maritime
training80
77John Prados Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf (Chicago IL Elephant Paperbacks 1996) 16
78Art Frizzell ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg overviewhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
79Warner
80Frizzell
42
The first operational OGs were infiltrated from Algiers into Italy to work with the
local resistance and harass the German 90th Panzer Division Other OGs were parachuted
into Italy to help recover US prisoners as well as a blind drop into Italy to give the Italian
command the details of the Armistice and cease actions against the Allies As the
Germans withdrew some resistance elements were liberated and were ready to return to
the North to harass the withdrawing Germans By mid-1945 when the Germans
surrendered there were ten OG missions totaling 120 men in northern Italy81 For up to
two weeks the OGs and their resistance elements governed their areas until Allied
military governments arrived During this time OGs had to maintain order and receive
drops of humanitarian items for the local populous82
In 1943 another OG was stood up at the request of the Greek government in exile
to assist Greek guerrillas hiding in the mountains The mission for this OG which arrived
in Greece in April of 1944 was to delay and harass 80000 German troops withdrawing
from Greece The British also participated and provided the Raider Support Regiment83
The OG operations in Yugoslavia were one part of the British-led Allied efforts in
Yugoslavia The purpose for the Allied effort in Yugoslavia was conducting as many
offensive operations as possible against German troop concentrations The operational
base for this operation was a British garrison which included British Commandos a
Raider Support Regiment some naval and air support and a number of Yugoslavian
81Albert Materazzi ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwww ossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
82Ibid
83ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
43
resistance units all together totaling several thousand84 There are three categories of OG
missions in Yugoslavia mainland operations reconnaissance patrols and island
operations The mainland operations for OSS were unsuccessful and stopped after only
two failed attempts85
The island operations began in January of 1944 and were aimed at conducting
raids to inflict casualties on German garrisons and outposts These OG raiding parties
were at time large and combined efforts with other British and partisan units For
example the first mission against Hvar Island had 33 OGs 150 British Commandos and
75 partisans while others such a linear ambush on Korcula Island in April of 1944 had a
party of only seven OGs and a few partisans The size of this operation grew especially
when aimed at relieving pressure on Tito during German offensives One extremely large
operation included the British Commandos a British Infantry battalion the Raider
Support Regiment and an undisclosed number of partisans with OG units A and B
serving as flank security and liaison between the partisans and the British artillery The
mission succeeded in drawing the Germans from along the coastal regions as well as
another German division from the interior and is regarded as successful in relieving some
pressure from Titorsquos partisans86
84ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavian html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
85ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo available from httpwwwossog orgyugo-mainlandhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
86ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
44
The French OG group was originally composed of 200 volunteers The French
OGs were ready to deploy at the completion of their training in the fall of 1943 but they
were delayed because military leaders in conventional commands were reluctant to
deploy OGs for lack of understanding of their employment In an attempt to remedy this
misunderstanding the French OGs participated in field training exercises with airborne
units from Fort Bragg North Carolina in December of 1943 The French OGs were still
in limbo conducting environmental training in Virginia and Colorado when they
received orders attaching the groups to the Seventh Army in Algiers They arrived in
Algiers and were forced to wait once again until finally being assigned missions in
support of the Normandy invasion
There were two operational groups deployed into France the French OG and the
Norwegian OG The French OG flew from England nearly a month after the invasion
parachuted into France and operated north of Lyons The Norwegian OG flew from
Algiers and operated in southern France south of Lyons The total number of teams
deployed to France was twenty all with the missions to cut enemy lines of
communications attack vital enemy installations organize train and boost the morale
and efforts of local resistance elements and to gather intelligence for the advancing
Allied Armies
The Norwegian OG which was stationed and trained at Camp Hale Colorado
was made up of 100 officers and noncommissioned officers In December 1943 the
Norwegian OG was moved to England and was assigned to the OSS SO Headquarters
subordinate to the Scandinavian Section As was previously stated the Norwegian OGs
deployed to France and upon the liberation of France the Norwegian OG was reduced in
45
size As the Norwegian OG was being drawn down Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces
became concerned with 150000 German troops that were in northern Norway that
intelligence estimated would be moved south to defend Germany SHAEF wanted to
ensure that the Germans were forced to take sea routes so the OGrsquos mission would be to
disrupt the rail lines The commanding officer for the operation split the OG into two
units identified as NORSO I and NORSO II for Norwegian Special Operations87
NORSO I consisted of three officers and thirty enlisted soldiers and was the main
effort NORSO II consisted of one officer and eighteen enlisted soldiers and was to serve
as the reserve prepared to reinforce NORSO I if necessary or to complete a separate
mission The NORSO I target was identified as the Nordland Railway more specifically
the Grana Bridge plus lesser targets along the line The operation was plagued with
numerous difficulties from weather to deadly plane crashes however it did go on in less
than optimal conditions They successfully destroyed two and a half kilometers of track
disrupting the troop movements A month later they were told the Germans had
capitulated and NORSO I and II then participated in the disarmament procedures and
performed policing duties in the areas of German surrender88
Finally the Chinese OG mission was much different than what the OG missions
in Europe The mission entailed ldquothe formation training equipping and attachment of
87ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
88ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
46
American personnel for twenty Chinese Commandosrdquo89 This mission was generated
from an agreement that Chinese divisions led by veteran Americans would be more
effective than a regular Chinese division The agreement was made in January of 1945
and the nucleus of the OG personnel for this mission was the recently redeployed French
OG elements of the Norwegian OG and a third OG that had conducted amphibious
operations in Burma Additional officers and enlisted men were brought from
replacement centers in the US raising the total number of US personnel to 160 officers
and 230 enlisted all under the command of a lieutenant colonel Each Commando unit
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 8th 9th and 10th consisted of 154 Chinese and 19 Americans The
units were task organized into a headquarters three rifle sections a 60 millimeter mortar
section a light machine gun section and a demolition section In the initial plans it was
thought that there would be 3000 Chinese troops but due to physical readiness only a
quarter were available In the eighth week training cycle the Commandos showed major
improvements and for the Chinese being selected and becoming a Commando were
achievements to be proud of Seven of the Commando units conducted operations with
hostilities ending before the others could be stood up and trained90
Office of Strategic Services Summary
The OSS had gained valuable experience first from the British who taught
Donovanrsquos agency everything they had learned conducting clandestine and covert
operations in the first years of the war The partnership between SOE and OSS helped the
89John Hamblet ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo available from httpwwwossog orgchinahtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
90Ibid
47
OSS get through its fits and starts Donovanrsquos vision made the OSS an organization that
at the end of the war was an organization with an extremely effective strategic
intelligence and unconventional warfare capability Donovan had opened the Pandorarsquos
Box of irregular warfare for which the politicians and conventional military leaders were
not ready and contributed to the OSS being disbanded at the end of the war However
with the post-World War II environment looming it would not take very long before it
became evident that these types intelligence and unconventional warfare operations
would become the norm of covert activity during the Cold War
Demobilization of the different resistance groups throughout the world ran the
gambit of no demobilization and just turning the elements over to the reinstalled
government to collecting up arms and returning the resistance members back to their preshy
war lives Will Irwin provides a glimpse into the minds of the exile governments with
respect to resistance elements and their post-war status in this case the French ldquoSpecial
Force Headquarters received [a] Jedburgh message requesting a parachute drop of
arms and ammunition to the Paris resistance But de Gaullersquos London-based
commander of the [French Forces of the Interior] postponed the operation in hopes
that the arrival of Allied forces in the city would preclude the need to further arm the
Paris resistance because it was predominantly communistrdquo91 The fear at the time was
that the communist resistance would take over Paris with French commanders ldquoanxious
to install a provisional noncommunist government in the city as soon as it fellrdquo92 This is
91Irwin 145
92Ibid
48
exactly what they did after Paris was liberated ldquo[wasting] no time in occupying
government buildings and establishing political controlrdquo93
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
OSS operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements Like
the SOE the OSS operations were shaping operational supporting the advance of Allied
troops Finally the operational approach was combat with each element conducting
combat advising or in the case of the operational groups conducting their own operations
As with the SOE some resistance groups they received direct support in the way of
weapons and supplies but no combat advisory support The operational groups were
somewhat different in their application more commando-like and probably low-
visibility versus clandestine in nature Depending on their mission profile they may have
conducted unilateral direct action missions special reconnaissance or working with
resistance elements conducted unconventional warfare
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations
Introduction
At the conclusion of the war President Trumann who disliked Donovan and his
agency gave the order to disband OSS immediately The SO capability was dropped the
Research and Analysis Section went to the State Department and everything else went to
the War Department Because the Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy had saved SI
and X-2 this would constitute a peacetime intelligence service McCloy then named this
93Ibid 145-6
49
organization the Strategic Services Unit which was then confirmed by directive from the
Secretary of War Michael Warner explains that the Executive Order also directed the
Secretary of War to ldquoliquidaterdquo OSS activities that were not in line with national
interests Seeing that most of the work that Donovan had accomplished with respect to
developing an irregular warfare capability all of it was counter to the conventional-
minded military leaders who were happy to get rid of this threatening concept for war
that they considered ungentlemanly anyway
Within two years a new organization no longer in the War Department was
established by the President and Congress initially called the Central Intelligence Group
The CIG became the CIA with signing of the National Security Act of 194794 The 1947
Act gave the CIA the responsibility for coordinating all intelligence activities within the
US government including gathering analyzing and distributing intelligence products A
follow-on act in 1947 provided the CIA with ldquoconfidential fiscal and administrative
proceduresrdquo which was appropriate for the kind of work the CIA was conducting95
With the end of World War II the Cold War was beginning to emerge and
communist ideology was beginning to spread In this conflict in which both sides had
nuclear weapons they could threaten each other but could not resort to war as had been
known in the past Now the US and the USSR jockeyed for position and began to give
covert support to governments and indigenous resistance forces to influence countries
and regions in order to expand control One of the tools that had been looked upon by the
94Warner
95Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd) 2
50
regular military with such disdain supporting resistance forces would now play a major
role in the Cold War
Common sense told many politicians within the Truman administration that
covert actions should be the responsibility of the military Their argument seemed easy-shy
during World War II the military was responsible for covert and clandestine operations
such as deception psychological operations subversion sabotage ldquobehind-the-linesrdquo
unconventional warfare to support indigenous elements raids and even assassinations
However as was mentioned earlier the uniformed leaders within the Pentagon did not
want to get stuck with a controversial and unorthodox method of warfare and
enthusiastically gave it up to the CIA ldquo[JCS] apparently was fearful of what it perceived
to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in subrosa [sic] cloak-andshy
dagger activitiesrdquo96 Although the CIA retained control of the peace time operations they
had wanted not only the covert paramilitary activities during peacetime as stipulated by
National Security Council 102 in June 1948 but in wartime as well97
However in the early 1950s the DOD would once again develop a capability to
support indigenous resistance forces with the stipulation that it would only do this in
wartime leaving the peacetime operations to the CIA The Special Forces were born and
prepared for operations behind enemy lines in Germany should the Cold War turn hot It
is also notable that the term chosen by the CIA for support to insurgency was
96Bank 161
97Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Psychological and Unconventional Warfare 1941-1952 (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2002) 69
51
ldquoparamilitary operationsrdquo which John Prados defines as ldquoThe type of clandestine
operations that creates forces resembling regular military unitsrdquo98
The Three Disciplines
The ldquothree disciplinesrdquo within the CIA are intelligence collection and analysis
counterintelligence or counterespionage and covert action99 As William Daugherty
points out the first two operations collection and counterintelligence are meant to be
clandestine in other words ldquothe actual operations their participants and their results are
intended to remain hidden from viewrdquo100
Intelligence collection is the collection of raw intelligence data from any number
of sources including human and technical means This is the classic form of intelligence
work and the primary role of the CIA and the one that it is most famous for This raw
intelligence is then analyzed and is provided to the policy makers as ldquofinishedrdquo
intelligence upon which they can make decisions regarding threats or intentions of other
nations or non-nation actors
Counterintelligence or counterespionage functions to deny an advantage to its
adversaries This can be done in numerous ways such as turning foreign intelligence
agents to provide information on their fellow spies or ensuring adequate protections are
in place to protect sensitive information Both collection and counterintelligence share
many of the same techniques and requirements
98Prados 17
99Daugherty 9
100Ibid 12
52
The final discipline and the one that applies to paramilitary operations is covert
action Daugherty defined covert action simply as ldquoinfluencerdquo--influencing foreign
audience in the case of paramilitary operations by using covert military operations
preferably through a third-party actor101 Covert action results are visible but the
perpetrator cannot be identified Daugherty further highlights the application of this to the
US government by quoting the 1981 Executive Order 12333 ldquospecial activities [covert
operations] conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are
planned and executed so that the role of the United States government is not apparent or
acknowledged publiclyrdquo102 Thus with respect to paramilitary operations the indigenous
or surrogate force provides the ldquofrontrdquo to the operations and keeps the action or influence
from being directly attributable to the US As Daugherty explains ldquothe covert aspect is
that the lsquosponsorrsquo (ie the government behind the program) remains hidden leaving the
observers to believe that the actors are indigenous citizens acting entirely of their own
volition in events that are local in originrdquo103
Interestingly the first official definition of covert action was articulated by
President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in Executive Order (EO) 12333 The definition reads
[S]pecial activities conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly and functions in support of such activities but which are not intended to influence United States political processes public opinion policies or media and do not include diplomatic
101Ibid
102Daugherty 13
103Ibid
53
activities or the collection or production of intelligence and related support functions104
Other key points of Executive Order 12333 are that intelligence activities are not
primarily covert action covert actions must not be conducted within the US and ldquoit
explicitly and unambiguously assigns all peacetime covert action missions to the
CIArdquo105
The executive order has worked well enough that it was amended into a federal
statute in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991 The federal statute defines covert
action as
[A]n activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political economic or military conditions abroad where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly but does not include (1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence (2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities106
One of the confusing points of Executive Order 12333 is the use of the words special
activities versus covert action At first glance they seem similar but they do not have as
much in common as it would seem Daugherty explain that included in the special
activities rubric are
[P]rograms such as training of foreign military security and intelligence services [which] have been especially important to presidents not because the programs seek change in a hostile regime but because they work to preserve a friendly regime107
104Ibid
105Ibid 13-14
106Ibid 14
107Ibid 15
54
So now that these two definitions show that covert action and special activities are related
but not the same thing Unlike covert actions special activities ldquoare not intended to
produce any overt event to influence an audience but instead are operations that are
meant to remain clandestine in all aspectsrdquo108 With respect to this thesis paramilitary
operations are thus covert unconventional warfare operations to influence such as
overthrowing a government and special activities are clandestine foreign internal defense
operations which could be used when a foreign government did not want overt US
support and training
Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability
Since the end of World War II the US military has not had the lead role in any
covert action programs aimed at supporting indigenous forces The military supported
CIA covert operations at times such as providing training teams for operations
According to Bob Woodward Special Forces soldiers accompanied CIA paramilitary
operatives into Northern Iraq before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom which provides
an example of once easily definable peace or war lines of separation becoming harder to
discern109
William Daugherty provides a list of reasons why DOD has not been able to
conduct peacetime covert operations
DOD does not possess nor has it ever possessed the statutory authority to conduct classic covert action except
108Ibid 16
109Bob Woodward Plan of Attack (New York NY Simon and Schuster 2004) 208-209
55
During a war formally declared by Congress
During any period covered by a report to Congress under the War Powers Act
When DOD is specifically tasked by the President because it is determined that the military is more likely to achieve particular objectives
CIA already has existing infrastructure to conduct covert actions such as its fleet of civilian-registered aircraft and maritime vessels
CIA already has recruited agents third-country nationals to carry out the required operational and support activities in foreign countries
DOD covert action forces would either have to give up protection of their Geneva Convention rights or any covert actions that were discovered they could be considered an act of war
CIA already has a presence in many of the 190 sovereign nations in the world which give them long operational reach support and clandestine infrastructure
CIA has almost instantaneous reaction or response time in any crisis situation to include the capability to travel in alias under civilian cover and with non-US travel documents
CIA has a core of career covert action specialists in each of the four broad categories of covert action ndash propaganda political action paramilitary and information warfare110
The obvious advantages currently go to the CIA however these same capabilities could
be developed within DOD with help of the CIA who is reluctant to share any of their
ldquotoysrdquo as Daugherty alludes to throughout his book
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations
CIA covert operations were widespread throughout the Cold War While some of
these programs remain classified there are a few notable paramilitary actions and special
110Daugherty 62-69
56
activities that provide an interesting comparison to Special Forces operations during this
same period As William Daugherty points out
From Trumanrsquos time through the Nixon years covert action programs served only two purposes they were intended either to stop the spread of Communism to countries that were not under the Soviet thumb by strengthening or supporting whatever regimes were in power or to weaken Communist or Communist-supported government by lsquoeroding their internal supportrsquo111
From the Nixon years on covert actions began to be used against non-Communist
targets
Eastern Europe 1949-1956
With the Soviet occupation of the Eastern European satellite nations the US and
Britain began a subversion campaign almost immediately The Ukraine was the first
country the MI6 and CIA actively sought to raise anti-Soviet resistance capabilities In
1945 MI6 was able to reestablish contact with the leader of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists When the State Department agreed to proceed with support the
mission was given to the foreign intelligence bureau and the Office of Policy
Coordination responsible for paramilitary operations112
The Office of Policy Coordination started numerous training camps in West
Germany to train Eastern eacutemigreacutes from the Soviet Union and Ukraine The first group of
agents was infiltrated into western Ukraine by parachute in 1949 The long-term plan was
to infiltrate 2000 agents throughout the Eastern Bloc countries The mission of the agents
111Ibid 124
112Peter Harclerode Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden (London Cassell and Company 2001) 5-7
57
was to report Soviet preparations for offensive operations against the west and support
resistance organizations to disrupt any Soviet operations against the west113
The CIA also infiltrated agents into Lithuania which in 1944 had 30000
resistance members of the group the ldquoForest Brotherhoodrdquo Latvia was thought to have
14000 well-armed fighters114 However none of these operations was able to keep an
agent alive for any period of time after his infiltration most succumbing to immediate
arrest or death For the CIA and Secret Intelligence Service no goals had been reached
despite a large expenditure of money and resources Daugherty offers these observations
on why these operations failed
[U]nrealistic goal of lsquorolling backrsquo Communist domination organizers mistakenly assumed that eacutemigreacute groups could be made secure from Soviet penetrations [and] Soviet military and intelligence units conducted formidable counter-insurgency operations in the target countries relentlessly hunting down the eacutemigreacute guerilla force Last these operations were betrayed by [a] KGB double agent115
Albania offered another opportunity for use of unconventional warfare this time
aimed at the regime of Enver Hoxha ldquothe dictator and secretary-general of the Albanian
Communist Partyrdquo116 The goal of this combined British and US effort as Peter
Harclerode explains ldquowas to wrest the country from the Sovietrsquosand assist the
establishment of a democratic pro-Western governmentrdquo117 The concept for this
113Ibid
114Ibid 21
115Daugherty 127
116Harclerode 35
117Ibid
58
operation was to instigate an uprising to overthrow Enver Hoxha with operations taking
place from 1949 to 1954 For this operation 250 Albanians were recruited by the exiled
Albanian National Council which would comprise Company 4000 and led by an
American officer Three platoons were raised and trained in varying levels of guerrilla
warfare and then parachuted into Albania Although able to infiltrate members of the
company most were quickly captured or killed by the effective internal security
apparatus of the Hoxha regime By August of 1954 it was decided to disband Company
4000 and dismantle the training school located in Western Germany The remaining
recruits were demobilized and then were dispersed throughout the US Britain and other
locations A CIA officer is quoted by Peter Harclerode providing significant insight into
the lessons learned from this operation
The Albanian operation was the first and only attempt by Washington to unseat a Communist regime within the Soviet orbit by paramilitary means It taught a clear lesson to the war planners Even a weak regime could not be overthrown by covert paramilitary means alone118
The activities against the Soviet Union and its satellite states in the early years of
the Cold War provide and interesting beginning to post-World War II unconventional
warfare All of these efforts were plainly unconventional warfare aimed at using
resistance organizations to disrupt of Soviet expansion and if war broke out to act as
shaping operations forcing the commitment of Soviet combat power to rear area security
These operations were all indirect using training areas in third-party countries and then
infiltrating these elements into the target country unilaterally with the radio being the
only connection to their CIA handlers
118Ibid 71
59
Korea
Korea provides a great example of two simultaneous unconventional warfare
efforts one by the CIA with a cover name of Joint Advisory Commission Korea and
other efforts by of conventional military officers with the most prominent effort being
that assigned to the Guerrilla Division of the 8240th Army Unit The conventional
military cadres had little or no formal unconventional warfare training or experiences119
These efforts were not coordinated until a year into the conflict when the Far East
Command which in 1953 would be redesignated as United Nations Partisan Infantry
Korea established the Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea to
synchronize these unconventional warfare efforts120 Before the establishment of the
Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea a single officer Colonel John
McGee who had worked with the Filipino guerrillas in World War II was assigned to the
Far East Command G-3 Operations as the sole member of the Miscellaneous Division
His initial task was ldquoto prepare a staff study on the possibilities of conducting guerrilla
operations against the North Koreans using some of the refugees from the northrdquo121
The CIArsquos mission was to ldquostep up pressure on the Chinese Communists by
supporting guerrilla movements on the mainland of China especially along lines of
communicationsrdquo122 The CIA successfully established a network of covert intelligence
119Ibid 179 and Col Ben S Malcom (ret) and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea (Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996) xi
120Malcom and Martz 14-15 27
121Ibid 15
122Major General (ret) John K Singlaub Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century (New York NY Summit Books 1991) 181
60
bases along the North Korean coast from which Korean agents could be dispatched
However the operation was never able to establish any significant resistance networks
The 8420th was able to establish a substantial resistance effort primarily due to
location and a large refugee population of willing supporters but the overall effects are
arguable since the resistance was rewarded for their actions based on their own reports
truthful or not Part of the operational constraints was that no American could operate in
North Korea due to the political risks which made it difficult for the American cadres to
exploit the efforts of the resistance123 In some cases there were documented successes
by American advisors such as then 1st Lieutenant Ben Malcolm that had special
permission or ldquoclandestinelyrdquo went ashore not having the consent of their higher
headquarters
The motivation for much of the resistance effort was the belief that the United
Nations would conduct a counteroffensive against the Chinese As Ben Malcolm
explains the assumptions being that when the offensive happened ldquothe partisans would
prove invaluable at their harassment and interdiction of enemy forces It was classic
unconventional warfare strategy using the partisans as an auxiliary to conventional
forces on the attack helping to shape the battlefieldrdquo124 An example of the effectiveness
of some of these units such as the 8086th Army unit which in less than a year claimed to
ldquohave conducted 710 operations killed 9095 and wounded 4802 and captured 385rdquo
123Ibid 183
124Malcom and Martz 17 61
and in the process destroyed thirty-seven road bridges twelve railway bridges and
twelve tunnels and seven hundred weaponsrdquo125
Demobilization of the partisan forces was called Operation Quicksilver and called
for the ldquointegration of the partisans into [Republic of Korea] unitsrdquo126 As Ben Malcolm
explains ldquoQuicksilver called for those partisans with at least two years of service to be
honorably discharged and given their uniforms mess gear four blankets two hundred
pounds of rice and transportation to their city of choice in South Koreardquo127 Those opting
to enlist for two years got the same incentives plus an extra one hundred pounds of rice
For their transfer from American to South Korean control the US only required them to
ldquoturn in their weapon and for some unexplained reason their canteen cuprdquo128 However
less than half of the 22000 partisans disappeared in a year and as Ben Malcolm
surmises some went south and some ostensibly went north with some elements still
requesting support by radio ldquowell after the armistice was signedrdquo129
The unconventional warfare operation in Korea can be summarized as covert
shaping operations aimed at disrupting the Chinese forces in support of the larger United
Nations mission thus these operations were shaping operations With regards to the
operational approach of these operations they are mostly direct support with only a few
examples of sanctioned combat advisory support
125Ibid 26
126Ibid 190
127Ibid 190-1
128Ibid 191
129Ibid
62
Tibet
In the case of Tibet five years elapsed between the beginning of the Chinese
invasion and the Tibetan uprising in 1956 President Eisenhower authorized covert
support to the unorganized ldquoTibetan internal resistance movementrdquo130 The intended
effect was ldquoto confront thwart or harassrdquo the Chinese Communist government The
program began in 1956 and ended by President Richard Nixon thirteen years later in
1969131 While eventually unsuccessful certain aspects of this covert action are
intriguing Beginning in December of 1956 an operation codenamed ST CIRCUS
commenced with a small groups of handpicked Tibetan resistance members were
exfiltrated out of the country by the CIA and taken to different training bases in the
Pacific and later America132 As Peter Harclerode explains
At a training camp established by the CIA the six Tibetans underwent four and a half months of extensive instruction in guerrilla warfare In addition to small arms they trained in the use of light support weapons including the 57mm recoilless rifle and 60mm mortar and well schooled in tactics fieldcraft map-reading navigation demolitions mine-laying sabotage booby traps and first aid They also received instruction on in intelligence-gathering skills and in [long range encrypted communications]133
These teams also learned to parachute and establish drop zones for receiving personnel
and equipment134 These teams were then parachuted back into Tibet to organize
130Daugherty 144
131Ibid
132Harclerode 348-9
133Ibid 350
134Ibid
63
resistance forces Although the program generated mixed results the concept was a
proven means of conducting indirect support
The program was shut down in 1974 after relations with China had warmed
during the Nixon administrations The Tibetans were left feeling ldquodiscarded by the
United States which no longer needed them now that they had served their purposerdquo135
There was no demobilization instead the US ldquoterminatedrdquo support not only paramilitary
assistance but political recognitions and support in the United Nations and the financial
support to the exiled government136
This indirect unconventional warfare program was also covert and unique in that
the majority of the training took place in the continental US at different locations but all
under extreme secrecy This program was a strategic shaping operation aimed at
indirectly influencing China
Cuba
Almost immediately after President Kennedy entered the White House in January
of 1961 he authorized the CIA to begin to conduct covert operations against the Castro
Government One element of this extensive covert action program that included
psychological operations and sabotage was a paramilitary effort This paramilitary
infamously known as the ldquoBay of Pigsrdquo would end in tragedy and failure The plan was
135Ibid 393
136Ibid
64
to conduct an invasion of Cuba using exiled Cuban resistance members and overthrow
Castro The training for this operation took place in a Guatemala a third-party country137
Regardless of the failures of this operation it does provide an interesting
unconventional warfare case study for analysis With respect to the operational signature
it may have begun as a covert operation but the supporting efforts such as ldquoair strikes
from US Navy and Marine squadrons on nearby aircraft carriersrdquo would have definitely
changed the signature and thus the deniability of US involvement As to whether this was
a decisive or shaping operation its failure masks the true intent--a decisive overthrow of
Castro This operation began as an indirect unconventional warfare effort with training
conducted in a third party country and arms and equipment provided by the CIA Had
the air support been provided as promised then this operation would have taken on a
direct or combat role depending on the level of naval air involvement While this was a
definite covert action gone bad operation it still provides a great lesson in the strengths
and weaknesses of unconventional warfare
Laos
The operation in Laos in the 1950rsquos and 1960rsquos is often incorrectly identified as
unconventional warfare when in fact it is more correctly a covert action in this case a
special activity to increase the Laotian government ability of defeating internal and
external threats138 Richard L Holm a former CIA officer describes the situation in
Laos ldquoLao communist forces known as the Pathet Lao (PL) were challenging the
137Daugherty 155
138Major Dean S Newman ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
65
governmentrsquos Royal Lao Army (FAR) throughout the country Although badly organized
and poorly trained and equipped the PL was bolstered by support from North Vietnam
whose units were call the VC (Vietnamese Communists)rdquo139 As Richard Holm explains
ldquoThe CIArsquos paramilitary efforts in Laos were divided roughly along geographic linesrdquo
north central and southern Laos and involved working with different tribal and ethnic
groupsrdquo140 Although the Pathet Lao threat to the Laotian government for the US
government greater concern was the North Vietnamese use of eastern Laos to support its
efforts in South Vietnam
The initial programs were under the auspices of the US Agency for International
Development and its advisors before becoming a covert action to ldquobolsterrdquo the Laotian
government141 Special Forces were also involved in White Star initially under the
command of Lieutenant Colonel ldquoBullrdquo Simons legendary for leading Son Tay Raid--the
prisoner-of-war rescue mission--some ten years later142 In the original program twelve
teams were under the auspices of the Agency for International Development Project
Evaluation Office later renamed the Military Assistance Advisory Group The effort was
initially called Operation Ambidextrous later to become Operation White Star143
139Richard L Holms ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 available from httpwwwodcigov csistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet accessed on 18 June 2005
140Ibid
141Ibid
142Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo available from httpwwwspecialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet accessed on 22 January 2006
143Ibid
66
The program ended in earnest in July of 1962 the Geneva negotiations on Laos
were signed stipulating that all foreign military personnel had to withdraw from Laos
The White Star advisors left the country as required while less than fifty of an estimated
10000 North Vietnamese soldiers passed through international observer checkpoints144
The Laotians were not demobilized but continued to receive covert support from the
CIA However with the end of the Vietnam war all US efforts in Laos ended and the
tribes who continued to fight were decimated many becoming refugees in Thailand
The operations in Laos were covert foreign internal defense shaping operations in
the larger context of the growing problems in South Vietnam However the White Star
operation was never able to successfully deny eastern Laos to the North Vietnamese It is
arguable whether the operational approach was combat or direct support but based on the
fact that Special Forcesrsquo suffered one killed-in-action and four missing in action during
this operation there were obviously combat advisor taking place145
Vietnam
In early 1961 President Kennedy tasked the CIA with initiating covert operations
against North Vietnam wanting to ldquoturn the heat up on Hanoi and do to them what they
were doing to the US ally in South Vietnamrdquo146 The real problem was that putting agents
and developing resistance forces in the North was that it was a denied area which some
144Charles M Simpson Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years (Novato CA Presidio Press 1983) 90
145Specialoperationcom
146Richard H Shultz Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi (New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999) xiii
67
considered to be a tougher environment than the Soviet Union China East Germany and
North Korea147 Over the next two years the President grew increasingly impatient with
CIA operations in North Vietnam and in 1963 turned over a majority of the programs to
military control in what was called ldquoOperation Switchbackrdquo This was a world-wide
replacement of CIA leadership of clandestine paramilitary operationsrdquo148
While there were many CIA programs developed a majority were turned over to
the military to run early in 1963 However one program that was an interagency effort to
defeat the insurgency called the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development
Support (CORDS) was established in 1967 Later to the ldquoRevolutionaryrdquo would be
changed to ldquoRuralrdquo but the programs goals did not--pacification of South Vietnamese
rural areas149 The CIArsquos role in CORDS was what initially was known as the
Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program later to be renamed Phoenix150 The
aim of this portion of Phoenix was to identify and neutralize the Viet Cong insurgent
underground organizational infrastructure in the rural towns and villages The Phoenix
programs emphasized four areas to attack the Viet Cong infrastructure (VCI) district
intelligence centers to identify VCI neutralize verified members of the VCI by either
capturing killing or conversion established rules for prosecuting VCI and placed the
147Ibid
148Simpson 138
149Major Ross Coffey ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
150Dale Andrade and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
68
emphasis of these efforts on local militias and police instead of the military In a four
year period beginning in 1968 Phoenix neutralized 81740 Viet Cong
The operations in North Vietnam proved that it is difficult to create a resistance or
insurgency from scratch especially in a denied area The programs were covert indirect
unconventional warfare operations with the goal of shaping the strategic environment
The Phoenix program was a low-visibility counterinsurgency program thus a foreign
internal defense It also was a shaping operation for the larger objective of CORDS
pacification plan and its operational approach was to empower local militias and police
so it was direct support
Nicaragua
The covert actions Finding for Nicaragua were signed by President Carter within
two weeks of the Sandinistas National Liberation Front rise to power in 1979151
However Carterrsquos Finding entailed nonlethal covert action only It was not until
December of 1981 that President Reagan would signed a Finding authorizing ldquocovert
funding and assistance for the anti-Sandinista rebelsrdquo better known as the Contras152
The initial funds and authorities provided funds to Argentina ldquoto organize and train a
five-hundred-man anti-Sandinistas unit for deployment in the Central American region
but with a proviso that the funds could not be utilized to overthrow the Nicaraguan
governmentrdquo153
151Daugherty 190
152Ibid 203
153Ibid 204
69
By the end of the program a second Finding authorized operations in Nicaragua
ldquocosting close to $100 million per year and the five-hundred-member Argentine unit was
transformed into a multi-thousand Nicaraguan rebel forcerdquo154 As Lynn Horton
highlights
[I]t is possible that 30000 or more Nicaraguans fought at some point with antigovernment forces making the contras [sic] one of the largest armed mobilizations of peasants in contemporary Latin American history In addition thousands more peasants participated in civilian collaborator networks that provided contra [sic] troops with food shelter and vital military information155
Despite the controversy in the US with the program the war ended in 1990 after the
Sandinistas National Liberation Front was defeated in the election that year The forces
were not demobilized by the US with some reverting to insurgency as necessary over the
next decade This controversial but successful program was a covert unconventional
warfare operation that ended up being a decisive operation through indirect support from
the different agencies in the US government
Afghanistan and the Soviets
The US had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of a Soviet-supported third-
world country Vietnam When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the Carter administration
saw an opportunity to return the favor As President Carterrsquos National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested ldquoWe now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its
Vietnamrdquo156 The Carter administration had already started covert operations months
154Ibid
155Lynn Horton Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 (Athens GA Ohio University 1998) xii
156Daugherty 189
70
before the Soviet invasion including a propaganda campaign indirect financial aid to
insurgents direct financial assistance to Afghan eacutemigreacute groups lethal and nonlethal aid
and offered training and support157 Afghanistan would prove to be the largest CIA
operation in history and one of the most successful As Anthony Joes highlights CIArsquos
success ldquoIt was perhaps the most satisfying experience the Americans ever had with
guerrilla warfarerdquo158
The Afghan mujahideen were much weaker militarily and politically than the
Vietnamese had been and they were facing a superpower that was not squeamish about
using brutal tactics against insurgents The other element that the mujahideen lacked was
unity of command and effort which was a huge obstacle but was partly due to the tribal
and warlord nature of the society
The amount of money the US expended was initially relatively small around 80
million dollars a year but this jumped to 470 million dollars a year in 1986 and to 700
million dollars by 1988159 The only major obstacle that the CIA faced was in its dealing
with the Pakistani intelligence service that favored four Afghan groups and ensured that
the majority of weapons over 70 percent were given to these groups However the
Pakistani Intelligence Service took an active roll in training and supporting the Afghans
to include numerous schools which trained over 80000 mujahideen by 1988160 The
157Ibid 188-189
158Anthony James Joes America and Guerrilla Warfare (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000) 279
159Ibid 310
160Harclerode 536
71
British were also very active throughout Afghanistan supporting the CIA efforts161 The
CIA also took advantage of the situation and was able to capture or recover some of the
Sovietrsquos premiere equipment including a Mi-24 attack helicopter162 The real coup was
the introduction of the Stinger missile which accounted for nearly 500 aircraft in 1987163
By 1988 the situation was untenable for the Soviets they had lost domestic support for
the war The Afghan mujahideen had succeeded in defeating the Soviets Once again the
US did not demobilize these elements although some effort was made to track the usage
of Stingers and to have unused Stingers turned back in
The efforts in Afghanistan provide a good example of coalition unconventional
warfare with numerous nations providing some type of support to the covert efforts
Afghanistan was an operational and strategic decisive operation removing the Soviets
from Afghanistan but also from the world scene leading up to the fall of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War The operational approach varied depending on the
nation some providing indirect monetary and political recognition of the effort to other
efforts that were direct support in nature providing training and sanctuary outside the
borders of Afghanistan Finally there were some combat advisory efforts by the US
Pakistan India China and other countries from the Middle East in the form of
intelligence agents and paramilitary advisors164
161Ibid 540
162Ibid 543-544
163Joes 311
164Harclerode 512
72
Central Intelligence Agency Summary
After a rough Post-World War II period the CIA proved to be a world class
intelligence organization From the first British visionaries who saw the potential of
unconventional warfare it has been proven time and again to be a viable method of
warfare It has been used to defeat the US and the Soviets and it continues to haunt the
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan Based on recent experience as a nation covert
paramilitary operations are now proven foreign policy tools
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Doctrinal Developments
In 1951 Lieutenant Colonels Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann were given the
charter to develop a DOD unconventional warfare capability by then chief of the Army
Psychological Warfare Brigadier General Robert McClure Both men understood
unconventional warfare due to their first-hand experiences in World War II working with
indigenous resistance organizations Lieutenant Colonel Bank was an OSS veteran
having supported resistance groups in France as a member of a Jedburgh team and later
in China165 Lieutenant Colonel Volkmann had organized the US Forces in the
Philippines--Northern Luzon ldquoone of the largest and best organized guerrilla operations
on Luzonrdquo166 He had also written the first Army Field Manual (FM) on guerrilla warfare
FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla [sic] Warfare that was published just
165Bank 13
166Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet accessed on 3 May 2006
73
as he and Bank began to develop the concepts for unconventional warfare and Special
Forces167
The combined experiences of Bank and Volckmann ran the gambit of
unconventional warfare one conducted clandestine operations in an environment where
he could speak the language and blend in while the other in a environment that he could
not blend into one trained in clandestine unconventional warfare the other with no
formal unconventional warfare training one in a combination urban and rural
environment the other in a rural jungle one as a member of a highly trained team the
other as part of an ad hoc organization and one conducted unconventional warfare
operation of generally short duration the other conducted long-term unconventional
warfare and finally one had experience using unconventional warfare to support
conventional operations while the other had experience conducting unconventional
warfare operations as the only effort until late in the war
However even with all of their experiences their most difficult task was to battle
conventional mindsets such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff that disliked the idea of
unconventional warfare As Bank explained ldquoIt apparently was fearful of what it
perceived to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in sub-rosa cloak-
and-dagger activities in the event of disclosurerdquo168 This contrasted to the new CIA that
wanted sole responsibility for unconventional warfare not just covert paramilitary
activities during peacetime as stipulated by National Security Council 102 in June
167Lieutenant Colonel Russell Volckmann US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare (Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951)
168Bank 161
74
1948169 Bank and Volckmann set out to establish an organization that could conduct UW
based on an operational element later the Operational Detachment Alpha which they
envisioned as ldquoa cadre that would mushroom into a huge guerrilla force actually a
phantom armyrdquo170
The same confusion that surrounds unconventional warfare today also haunted
Bank and Volkmann as Bank explains
Neither of us liked the fact that so much terminology was being bandied around concerning behind-the-lines operations The terms unconventional warfare clandestine operations unorthodox warfare and special operations were being used interchangeably171
When they refined the operational term they called it Special Forces Operations which
had a sole purpose of supporting resistance movements The operational concept
envisioned by Bank and Volckmann was
to infiltrate by air sea or land deep into enemy-controlled territory and to stay organize equip train control and direct the indigenous potential in the conduct of Special Forces Operations Special Forces Operations were defined as the organization of resistance movements and operation of their component networks conduct of guerrilla warfare field intelligence gathering espionage sabotage subversion and escape and evasion activitiesrdquo172
The focus on organizing resistance movements in this concept was Bank and Volkmannrsquos
attempt to separate Ranger-style missions from what they envisioned as Special Forces
missions
169Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins (Washington DC National Defense University 1982) 69
170Bank 166
171Ibid
172Ibid 179
75
This was important too since Bank and Volkmann had been under pressure from
the beginning to combine these two forces together This combined unit was supposed to
conduct all aspects of behind the line operations from unilateral raids and sabotage to
support to guerrilla movements Bank explains the differences ldquoThe Rangers were
strictly short-term shallow-penetration units whereas [Office of Strategic Services] had
long term much more complex strategic capabilitiesrdquo173 The Special Forces Operations
concept was meant to separate the purposes of Special Forces and Rangers Over the next
fifty years Special Forces added many of the missions which Bank and Volkmann fought
so hard to keep from the Special Forces charter However in times of budget cuts and
force reductions Special Forces had to adapt to the times to maintain the force and
relevance Vietnam and the Cold War would provide the impetus for developing new
capabilities that were not in the original charter developed by Bank and Volckmann
In the 1960rsquos as the Cold War began to be fought by communist-backed
revolutionists insurgents and guerrillas President Kennedy called upon the men who
trained to fight as guerrillas to now fight against these threats in an effort to contain
communist expansion in other words ldquofight fire with firerdquo President Kennedy set out in
earnest in the early 1960rsquos through a series of letters to the Army to get the military as a
whole to change the conventionally-bound military mindset to adapt to this new type of
political-insurgent warfare Thomas K Adams explains the reaction of the conventional
military to the request of the President
President Kennedy called for ldquoa wholly new kind of strategy a wholly different kind of force and therefore a new and different kind of military trainingrdquo What he got was business as usual but with [unconventional warfare] trimmings
173Ibid 144
76
regardless of the wrapper the contents of the package remained conventional warfare Describing the Armyrsquos reaction to Kennedyrsquos program Maxwell Taylor remembered feeling that ldquoall this dust coming out of the White House really isnrsquot necessaryrdquo It was ldquosomething we have to satisfy but not much heart went into [the] workrdquo He sounded a long standing theme when he added that he felt the Special Forces were not doing anything that ldquoany well-trained unitrsquo couldnrsquot dordquo174
Thomas Adams also noted as a result of these letters what occurred was ldquoan attempt to
fit the existing military structure to the counterinsurgency problemrdquo175 There were
numerous studies and conferences on topics such as special warfare counterinsurgency
and guerrilla operations during this time However the outcome of all these studies was a
limited counterinsurgency capability based on conventional light infantry tactics with no
change in understanding of the complex cultural and political elements of the problem176
In the 1960s despite the problems with the conventional military establishment
accepting its role in counterinsurgency Special Forces proved highly successful in
fighting insurgencies and guerrillas throughout the world In Vietnam for example
Special Forces programs such as the Civilian Irregular Defense Group and Mobile Strike
Forces were highly successful operations using indigenous or surrogate forces the
Montagnards and Chinese Nungs respectively Doctrine began to catch up to the
counterinsurgency actions with subtle shifts in 1965 to include discussions of Special
Forcesrsquo roles in counterinsurgency in FM 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques
and FM 31-21 Special Forces Operations
174Thomas K Adams US Special Operations in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare (Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998) 70
175Ibid 73 176Ibid
77
With the addition of counterinsurgency in these manuals the confusion between
counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare began with a mixing of terms One such
example is found in the 1961 FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces
Operations in which a new command structure is introduced called the Joint
Unconventional Warfare Task Force This task force would provide command and
control to operational elements within the theater of operations177 This headquarters
concept was put into practice in 1964 when the Military Assistance Command Vietnam-
Studies and Observation Group was created as a joint unconventional warfare task force
As Thomas K Adams explains that this Studies and Observation group was ldquoresponsible
for special operations in Burma Cambodia Laos North and South Vietnam and border
areas of Chinardquo178 In hindsight including unconventional warfare in the task force name
was probably a misnomer since all of the operations encompassed in the region were
either overt or covert foreign internal defense and special reconnaissance and to a lesser
extent direct action The only unconventional warfare operations during this period were
the failed attempts to establish and support a resistance force in North Vietnam179
In the 1963 version of FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces a new
counterinsurgency unit called the Special Action Force appears180 The Special Action
Force ldquois a specially-trained area-oriented partially language-qualified ready force
177Department of the Army FM 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1961) 14
178Adams 118 179Shultz 3
180Department of the Army FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1963) 1
78
available to the commander of a unified command for the support of cold limited and
general war operationsrdquo181 This Force is build specifically around a Special Forces group
with the mission of ldquoproviding training operational advise and assistance to indigenous
forcesrdquo182 The manual suggested that the Special Action Force be task organized with
ldquocivil affairs psychological warfare engineers medical intelligence military police and
Army Security Agency detachmentrdquo183 Another interesting feature of this organization
as explained in the FM 31-22 is the conventional army brigade-sized backup force As
the manual describes ldquoBrigade-size backup forces are area oriented and designed to back
up a particular [Special Action Force] These forces are committed to an operational area
when the capabilities of the [Special Action Force] have been exceededrdquo184
Charles Simpson III explains the real world application of the Special Action
Forces concept
Four Special Action Forces came into being one on Okinawa built around the 1st Special Forces Group for the Far East (SAFASIA) one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America and tow at Fort Bragg organized around the new 3rd and 6th Groups for Africa and the Middle East In Europe the 10th Special Forces Grouphellipassumed functions much like those of the large [Special Action Forces] but without their resources185
181Ibid 16
182Ibid 20
183Ibid 16
184Ibid 42
185Simpson 69
79
By 1972 the Special Action Force concept had ended with no group ever fully deployed
instead being piecemealed throughout the theaters186 One of the major shortcomings of
the program was the fact that a Special Action Force had to be requested by the
ambassador which was unlikely to be supported by the rest of the country team which
had civilian capabilities that were similar to the SAF This interagency rivalry
significantly reduced the effectiveness and usefulness of the Special Action Force
concept and led to the concepts demise187
A doctrinal shift occurred with the 1969 publication of FM 31-21 Special Forces
Operations which addressed new missions of support for stability operations and
unilateral operations--the precursors of foreign internal defense direct action personnel
recovery strategic or special reconnaissance This manual is still focused heavily on
unconventional warfare with this topic covered in the first nine of eleven chapters
however one chapter devoted to support for stability operations and one to covering the
employment of Special Forces ldquoin additional military operationsrdquo Stability operations in
this manual are defined as
internal defense and internal development operations and assistance provided by the armed forces to maintain restore or establish a climate of order within which responsible government can function effectively and without which progress cannot be achieved188
It also clarifies that unconventional warfare doctrine is ldquonot entirely applicable to overt
stability operationsrdquo and stipulates that
186Adams 100 187Simpson 68-9
188FM 31-21 10-1
80
Many [unconventional warfare] tactics and techniques such as those employed to gain the support of the local population to establish intelligence nets and to conduct tactical operations such as raids and ambushes may be adapted to stability operations189
The manual also describes ldquoadditional military operationsrdquo as ldquounilateral deep
penetrations to conduct reconnaissance surveillance and target acquisition attack
critical strategic targets recovery of friendly personnel in remote or hostile areas and
training of US andor allied personnel in Special Forces operational tactics and
techniquesrdquo190 Also of note is the definition of direct action mission ldquoOvert or
clandestine operations in hostile or denied areas which are conducted by US
[unconventional warfare] forces rather than by US conventional forces or through US
direction of indigenous forcesrdquo191 This is interesting because it denotes difference
between the unilateral direct operations and the use of indigenous forces
Unconventional warfare would continue to be the primary operation and bases for
all the Special Forces field manuals throughout the 1970s Foreign internal defense
emerged in the mid-1970s in Special Forces doctrinal manuals The definition of foreign
internal defense in the 1978 Special Text 31-201 Special Forces Operations is directly
out of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Publication 1 and is defined as the ldquoparticipation by
civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by
another government to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and
189Ibid
190Ibid 11-1
191Ibid Glossary 1
81
insurgencyrdquo192 It also describes a Special Action Force-type organization based once
again on a Special Forces group augmented with ldquohighly specialized skills need to assist
a host country to develop internal defenserdquo193 This special text notes that a augmented
Special Forces group can train advise and assist the host countryrsquos regular or
paramilitary forces as well as compliment or expand the US security assistance efforts of
the country team for short periods of time194
Between late 1970 and 1990 the changes in Special Forces doctrine were not
captured in writing The 1990 publication of FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces
Operations superseded the last FM 31-20 from 1977195 This new manual detailed eight
Special Forces missions and activities unconventional warfare foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism collateral activities and other
special operations activities196 While the definition of unconventional warfare is exactly
the same as today it is still obvious that unconventional warfare is directly related to
ldquoinsurgency or other armed resistance movementsrdquo197 Of note this manual begins to
address the change in insurgent environments from rural based to urban based In
192US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations (Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978) A-1
193Ibid
194Ibid
195Department of the Army FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 20 April 1990) Cover
196Ibid Index
197Ibid 3-2
82
response the manual explains that ldquoglobal urbanization dictates a shift in emphasis from
rural [guerrilla warfare] to all aspects of clandestine resistancerdquo198 This is the first time
in the doctrinal manuals that clandestine operations are discussed with regards to the
urbanization of insurgency
The Gulf War revitalized Special Forces having conducted numerous operations
employing special reconnaissance and coalition support Like many missions coalition
support was a necessary mission with only a couple of options for manning this force-shy
Special Forces was the most qualified In a misguided attempt to keep unconventional
warfare current to the times coalition support operations were added to unconventional
warfare This idea was further explained in the June 2001 FM 3-0520 Special Forces
Operations ldquoThe conventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and
led in varying degrees by SF and US allies represents the newest evolution of UW-related
surrogate forcesrdquo199 The argument could be made that elements of the 10th Special
Forces Group conducted unconventional warfare using Kuwaiti military units that had
fled the Iraqi invasion Although the actual operational impact was small due to the small
size of the ldquofreerdquo Kuwaiti force the civil-political impact of having a Kuwaiti unit help in
liberating its country was huge200 The use of surrogates or ldquosomeone who takes the
place of or acts for anotherrdquo was first addressed in the 1990 version of FM 31-20 in
198Ibid
199FM 3-0520 2-6
200Susan L Marquis Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces (Washington DC Brookings Institute Press 1997) 234
83
response to coalition warfare201 The 2001 FM 3-0520 tries to explain this concept to
prove coalition support is a valid unconventional warfare operation ldquoFrom a US point of
view these coalition forces and resources are surrogates and act as substitutes for US
troops and resources reducing US commitmentldquo202 The manual also highlights that
ldquoconventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and led in varying
degrees by SF and US allies represent the newest evolution in UW-related surrogate
forcesrdquo203
After the Gulf War as evidenced by the emphasis that coalition support was ldquothe
newest evolutionrdquo unconventional warfare was standing on shaky ground within the
Special Forces community204 The general feeling within Special Forces was
unconventional warfare no longer was a viable mission in the post-Cold War
environment and should be relegated to a lesser role or dropped altogether John Collins
highlights this feeling when he wrote ldquoCongress therefore might weigh the advisability
of discarding [unconventional warfare] as a statutory rolerdquo in favor of foreign internal
defense205
In October of 1994 Colonel Mark Boyatt then the Commander of 3rd Special
Forces Group wrote an article in Special Warfare recommending unconventional warfare
201FM 3-0520 2-5
202Ibid 2-6
203Ibid
204Ibid
205John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
84
and the other Special Forces core missions should fall under the umbrella of a new term
unconventional operations206 This concept did not catch on and in fact received some
critical reviews from his contemporaries One of his critics was Colonel Glenn Harned
who explains that a single catch-all mission like unconventional operations would not
allow a Special Forces element to stay proficient in all the skills sets necessary required
to be ldquounconventional operations qualifiedrdquo207
In October of 1998 the Commanding General of the United States Army Special
Forces Command (Airborne) then Major General William Boykin asked for input on the
relevance of unconventional warfare208 Although the results of this question are difficult
to determine from a doctrinal standpoint one of the replies highlights the
misunderstanding abound in the branch In answering this question Commander of the
3rd Special Forces Colonel Gary Jones and Major Chris Tone coauthored an article that
attempted to explain that although unconventional warfare had replaced the term guerrilla
warfare guerrilla warfare was still the primary mission of Special Forces They further
highlighted that ldquoIn the minds of most [sic] [Special Forces] soldiers [unconventional
warfare] doctrine has been oversimplified [Unconventional warfare] is just [foreign
internal defense] in a denied areardquo209 The authors go on to further misrelate insurgency
206Colonel Mark D Boyatt ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
207Colonel Glenn M Harned ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
208Kershner 84
209Colonel Gary M Jones and Major Chris Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 6
85
and guerrilla warfare when they state ldquoThe contrast between the operational
environments of the two unconventional warfare missions are striking [Guerrilla
Warfare] is conducted when our nation is at war insurgency is conducted when our
nation is at peacerdquo210 This article received a lot of positive feedback throughout the
community One supporter said that it ldquomarked the beginning of a [unconventional
Warfare] renaissance in the [Special Forces] communityrdquo211 However retired Colonel J
H Crerer wrote a critical review highlighting the mistakes of the authors for example
ldquoFirst [unconventional warfare] includes [guerrilla warfare] so it would be illogical to
use the terms interchangeably Second and more important [unconventional warfare]
also includes subversion and sabotagerdquo212
In 2000 the United States Army Special Forces Command again broached the
question of unconventional warfarersquos relevance and attempted to refocus the branch on
unconventional warfare to ensure Special Forces relevancy as the Army was concurrently
conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates The end result was a Special Forces
Commandrsquos concept called Unconventional Warfare 2020 Colonel Michael Kershner
summarized the findings of Unconventional Warfare 2020 in a series of articles in the
spring of 2001 that highlighted the confusion with unconventional warfare and redefined
unconventional warfare Colonel Kershnerrsquos explained that the new definition of
unconventional warfare would encompass all of the other core Special Forces missions
210Ibid
211Major Mike Skinner ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare as an SF Missionrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16
212Colonel J H Crerar ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37
86
to include foreign internal defense213 This subtle change to the definition was widely
accepted by the Special Forces branch which had been struggling for years to find a
more definitive description of unconventional warfare that would ensure a ldquonicherdquo
mission that no other military unit could conduct As Colonel Kershner explained in an
interview with Dennis Steele for an article in ARMY Magazine ldquoWe donrsquot want to be
stuck in the past or step into the future in a way that is irrelevant We must focus on
relevant and unique capabilities and [unconventional warfare] is our most unique
capabilityrdquo214
One other major point of departure from the legacy unconventional warfare
doctrine discussed by Kershner was the removal of the seven phases of US-sponsored
insurgency from doctrine Kershner stated that this seven-phases construct was ldquooutdated
[and it was] more appropriate to describe [unconventional warfare] in terms of current
US doctrinal phases--engagement crisis response war-fighting and return to
engagementrdquo215 The theory that US sponsors unconventional warfare in seven phases
emerged in the 1965 version of FM 31-20 Special Forces Operations (the 31-20 series
being the predecessor to 3-0520) However even earlier Russell Volkmannrsquos 1951 FM
31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare provided a similar phasing
213Kershner 84
214Dennis Steele ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article on-line] available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet accessed on 14 May 2006
215Ibid 87
construct in which he discussed ldquoseveral operational phasesrdquo including psychological
preparations initial contact infiltration organization build-up and exploitationrdquo216
Although not part of his suggested phases Volkmann discusses demobilization as
a separate chapter217 The unconventional warfare efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq after 11
September would validate the seven-phased construct However in Afghanistan and Iraq
the phases were compressed due to political constraints and then the tempo of operations
The only phase that was not validated during operation in Afghanistan and Iraq was the
seventh phase demobilization While some resistance elements were demobilized and
returned to society a vast majority continued to serve in the postconflict phases The
seven-phase construct had been developed based on the experiences of World War II in
which there was a rapid demobilization of forces at the end of the war The new
experiences with postconflict operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may force a change in
this final phase of unconventional warfare as it transitions to foreign internal defense218
Less than six months after Kershnerrsquos articles were published the events of 11
September transpired By the summer of 2003 unconventional warfare had been
successfully conducted in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and had been used to
support the conventional offensive operations against Saddam Hussein In each of these
efforts unconventional warfare would transition to foreign internal defense of an
intensity and scale that had not been encountered by US forces since Vietnam The events
of 11 September had one more effect the results of the Unconventional Warfare 2020
216FM 31-21 37-38
217Ibid 227-232
218Authorrsquos own experiences from Northern Iraq April 2003
88
studies were lost and not incorporated into the 2003 version of FM 3-05201 Special
Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations The first paragraph in the manual describes
the aspects of unconventional warfare explaining ldquoThe intent of Unites States (US)
[unconventional warfare] operations is to exploit a hostile powerrsquos political military
economic and psychological vulnerability by developing and sustaining resistance forces
to accomplish US strategic objectivesrdquo219 It also began to capture some of the lessons
learned from Operation Enduring Freedom the most important being that unconventional
warfare operations may be supported by conventional operations instead of the more
traditional role unconventional warfare supporting conventional operations As the
manual explains ldquothere are times when introduction of conventional forces does not
take the main effort away from unconventional operations in fact the conventional
forces may support the unconventional forcesrdquo220 The newest FM 3-05201 is currently
in final unreleased draft form and is classified SECRET This will be the first
unconventional warfare manual that has been classified in its entirety In the past a
classified supplemental pamphlet supplemented the unclassified manual such as the 1961
version of FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations with a classified
supplemental FM 31-21A
In mid-January 2004 the ldquoCody Conferencerdquo was held in Cody Wyoming ldquoto
identify concepts that will be necessary for shaping the future of Army Special
219FM 3-05201 1-1
220Ibid 1-3
89
Forcesrdquo221 The twelve members of this conference included a number of senior active
duty and retired Special Forces officers as well as representatives from acclaimed
members of the media academia and private sector222 With the war on terrorism as the
focal point the conference studied the current conflict and worked to define Special
Forces role against this new threat Major General Lambert highlights that ldquoSpecial
Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare which includes counterinsurgency and guerrilla
warfare Special Forces should be chartered to monitor and combat insurgencies even
though other US forces will move on to new prioritiesrdquo223 One of the recommendations
of this panel was the development of a ldquostanding deployable Special Forces
Headquartersrdquo that would be capable of conducting ldquosustained guerrilla warfarerdquo224
These last two points highlight the continued confusion of unconventional warfare
guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency that reaches even the highest levels of Special
Forces
The conference did develop a number of recommendations in addition to the just
mentioned deployable headquarters including the need for a ldquoglobal environment of
seamless information- and intelligence-sharing [improving] coalition allied and
surrogate intelligence and operational capabilitiesrdquo and ldquo[Conducting] area-denial
221Major General Geoffrey C Lambert ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20
222Ibid 27
223Ibid 23
224Ibid
90
area-control and remote-area operations either directly or with partnersrdquo225
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense would obviously play a significant
role in establishing this global capability by empowering the coalition partners to defeat
or disrupt their own internal and external threats as well as remove unfriendly regimes
that could be providing sanctuary for ones enemies as the Taliban did for Al Qarsquoida
Major General Lambert also mentions the importance of Special Forces as a ldquoforce
multiplierrdquo that ldquoconserves conventional military force for the main effortsrdquo226
In 1990 FM 100-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict the first
manual specifically written for low-intensity conflict was published in a joint effort by
the Army and Air Force The writers explain that ldquoThis manual fills a void which has
existed in the Army and Air Force for some time It complements warfighting doctrine by
providing operational guidance for military operations in [low intensity conflict] from
which implementing doctrine can be developedrdquo227 FM 100-20 also described an
organization called the Foreign Internal Defense Augmentation Force which could
augment or support the Security Assistance Organization in ldquosituations that range from
conditions short of open hostility to limited war They may locate strategically and vary
in size and capabilities according to theater requirementsrdquo228 This augmentation force if
225Ibid 22
226Ibid 24
227Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force Field Manual 100shy20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 5 December 1990) 1-1
228Ibid A-7 91
very similar to the previous described Special Action Forces of the late 1960s and early
1970s
The implementing doctrine for FM 100-20 took the form of FM 31-20-3
published four years later and titled Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and
Procedures for Special Forces The manual provided an extensive ldquohow tordquo handbook
for foreign internal defense The concepts of indirect direct and combat support to
foreign internal defense was not portrayed in this manual or its parent manual FM 100shy
20 The 1996 joint foreign internal defense manual JP 3-071 was reverse engineered
from the Special Forces manual However the joint manual was much more detailed and
had more depth
The family of Army manuals FM 100-5 and FM 3-0 Operations manuals have
only provided a basic description of foreign internal defense and to a much lesser extent
unconventional warfare The 1993 version of FM 100-5 combines support to insurgencies
and counterinsurgencies in three paragraphs total229 The 2001 version of FM 3-0
provides a much more in-depth description of foreign internal defense than the previous
FM 100-5230 However support to insurgencies is covered in three sentences in the
ldquostability operationsrdquo chapter explaining in essence that it takes a National Command
Authority (term no longer used) for Army forces to support an insurgency that Army
229Department of the Army FM 100-5 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 13-7 to 13-8
230Department of the Army FM 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 9-8 to 9-9
92
special operations forces are best suited for this supporting role and that conventional
forces can support these operations if necessary231
The manual addresses special operations in a supporting role only ldquo[Special
operations forces] can reinforce augment and complement conventional forces In
war [special operations forces] normally support the theater campaign or major
operations of the [joint force commander]rdquo232 Finally the FM 3-0 describes the
battlefield organization as ldquothe allocation of forces in the [area of operation] by purpose
It consists of three all-encompassing categories of operations decisive shaping and
sustainingrdquo233 Decisive operations ldquoare those that directly accomplish the task assigned
by the higher headquarters Decisive operations conclusively determine the outcome of
major operations battles and engagementsrdquo234 FM 3-0 further defines shaping
operations as ldquo[creating] or [preserving] conditions for success of the decisive
operationsrdquo235
While FM 3-0 does not directly relate these operations to unconventional warfare
or foreign internal defense examples exist that provide ample evidence that these
operations can be decisive and shaping With regards to unconventional warfare
operations supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 were
decisive and resulted in the overthrow of the Taliban while the operations in Northern
231Ibid 9-10
232Ibid 2-8
233Ibid 4-22
234Ibid 4-23
235Ibid
93
Iraq supporting the Kurdish resistance fixed thirteen of twenty Iraqi divisions in the
North shaping the battlefield for the conventional forces invading from the south An
example of a Special Forces foreign internal defense effort that was decisive is the direct
support to the El Salvadoran military to defeat the Farabundo Marti National Liberation
Front (FMLN) and a shaping operation is the success Special Forces had in South
Vietnam developing indigenous counterinsurgency forces in support of the larger
conventional campaign None of these examples have found their way into the joint or
Army doctrine The new FM 3-0 is currently in un-releasable final draft form
Much like the Army operations doctrine the 2001 JP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint
Operations takes only a paragraph to describe unconventional warfare calling it support
to insurgency This paragraph reads
Support to Insurgency An insurgency is an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a legally constituted government through the use of subversion and armed action US forces may provide logistic and training support to an insurgency but are not normally involved in the conduct of combat operations236
The current draft of the new JP 3-0 now called Joint Operations has added one
component to the above definition ldquoThe United States may support an insurgency against
a regime threatening US [sic] interests (eg US [sic] Support [sic] to the Mujahadin [sic]
resistance in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion)rdquo237 While the both publications
capture some elements of US support to insurgency such as training and logistics support
it has obviously not been updated since Operation Iraqi Freedom based on the final
236Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 10 September 2001) V-13
237Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) VII-9
94
statement that US forces ldquonormallyrdquo donrsquot conduct combat operations However the
description differs from the description found in FM 3-0 Operatioins in one respect it
provides a real-world example of unconventional warfare describing US efforts to
support the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets
Another important concept in the soon-to-be published Joint Publication 3-0
provides a new operational ldquophasing modelrdquo shown in figure 1 which has some
applicability to this study238 This model is important to this study because it provides the
first doctrinal recognition that any campaign is going to have multiple phases occurring
simultaneously and that operations do not stop at what has previously called conflict
termination--the end of combat operations For this study it will be important to
determine how the seven phases of US sponsored unconventional warfare fit within this
phasing construct This conceptual models has six phases--one phase covering peacetime
engagement and five the phases of an operation
238Ibid IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfare conceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
95
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfareconcepts approved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model
Phase 0-Shape-(Prevent and Deter) This is the normal peacetime engagement
environment in which the US forces are conducting operations to support the theater
security cooperation plan
96
Phase 1-Deter-(Crisis Defined) This is the first step in resolving conflict by
demonstrating military capabilities and the resolve of the US and it partners in an attempt
to deter an opponent from acting or forcing the US to react
Phase 2-Seize the Initiative-(Assure Friendly Freedom of Action and Access to
Theater Infrastructure) During this phase joint forces are applied to the problem to set
the condition for the dominate phase and may include military action and diplomatic
efforts
Phase 3-Dominate-(Establish Dominate Force Capabilities and Achieve Full
Spectrum Superiority) This is the phase that is focused on ldquobreaking the enemyrsquos will for
organized resistance or in noncombat situations control of the operational environmentrdquo
Phase 4-Stabilize-(Establish Security and restore services) This phase is required
when there is ldquolimitedrdquo or ldquono functioning legitimate civil governing entity present The
joint force may have to perform limited local governancerdquo
Phase 5-Enable Civil Authority-(Enable authorities and Redeploy) During this
phase the US joint forces support the legitimate government and more importantly it
marks the military end state and redeployment239
The new JP 3-0 also highlights that the ldquoStabilizerdquo phase may characterize the
transition from ldquosustained combatrdquo to ldquostability operationsrdquo It also rightly explains
ldquoStability operations are conducted as needed to ensure a smooth transition to the next
phase and relieve sufferingrdquo240 However the model does not provide a description of
how to identify this transition The importance of this graph will become apparent during
239JP 3-0 Joint Operations IV-33 to IV-37
240Ibid IV-36
97
the analysis portion of this thesis especially with respect to phasing unconventional
warfare and the transitions between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
Other documents are available to provide some insight into the future of Special
Forces doctrine with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense in
lieu of these soon-to-be-released doctrinal manuals These are the 2004 National Military
Strategy the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and finally the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement These three documents may hold the keys to
future unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
The 2004 National Military Strategy identifies six capabilities required for the US
to win decisively ldquoconventional warfighting unconventional warfare homeland
security stability and postconflict operations countering terrorism and security
cooperation activities [italics-authorsrsquo emphasis]rdquo241 This statement has enormous
implications for Special Forces in the future since three of these capabilities are Special
Forces-specific and are tied directly to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review is another important document with
respect to the future of unconventional warfare One of the Quadrennial Defense Review
decisions is to ldquoFurther increase [Special Operations Forces] capability and capacity to
conduct low-visibility persistent presence missions and a global unconventional warfare
241Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategy of the Unites States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow (Washington DC Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2004) 13
98
campaignrdquo The key point here is the idea of a ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo
and determining exactly what that means242
The term ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo is used in the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement but is not defined The posture statement does
define unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo243 These definitions are not supported by current joint definitions of
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense adding to the overall confusion The
posture statement identifies five missions that will ldquohelp establish the conditions to
counter and defeat terrorismrdquo unconventional warfare psychological operations foreign
internal defense special reconnaissance and civil affairs244 It is interesting that direct
action and counterterrorism are not mentioned in this list of operations since these two
operations are the major capability that the Special Operations Command provides to the
overall military effort245 Not addressing these terms may be an indicator that current
studies on unconventional warfare are pointing to direct action and counterterrorism
operations against non-state actors and their infrastructure as being unconventional
242Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
243United States Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 5 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8-06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
244Quadrennial Defense Review Report 1 see glossary for definitions
245FM 3-0520 2-1 see glossary for definitions
99
The history of Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine provides a window to the past The history of unconventional warfare doctrine is
plagued with confusion from the beginning From vague definitions to mission creep the
concepts of supporting insurgencies found in the Special Forces unconventional warfare
doctrine has been proven since 11 September The current attempt to change the
unconventional warfare doctrine to align with the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo is
not a new concept either and is the direct result of the vagueness of the unconventional
warfare definitions This idea is reinforced by studying foreign internal defense doctrine
which provides by far the most clear and concise definitions and doctrine
South Vietnam
The confusion over unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense reached
its climax in Vietnam Michael McClintock explains in terms of guerrilla warfare
(unconventional warfare) and counterinsurgency (foreign internal defense) ldquoThe
confusion of guerrilla warfare with counterinsurgency was in evidence from the
inceptions of the American effort to wage counterinsurgency in Vietnam What is
extraordinary is that very little thought appears to have gone into this distinctionrdquo He
suggests that ldquothe [Special Forces] generally went about the task of counterinsurgency as
if engaged in guerrilla operations behind enemy linesrdquo246
Regardless of the confusion the Special Forces programs were easily among the
most productive in the entire war effort The main Special Forces efforts were with the
246Michael McClintock Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 (wwwstatecraftorg 2002) available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet accessed on 21 February 2006
100
Civilian Irregular Defense Group program the Mobile Guerrilla Forces and Mike
Forces Another effort that is sometimes confused with unconventional warfare was the
cross-border operations conducted by the Studies and Observation Group which utilized
surrogates such as Chinese Nungs and turned former Viet Cong guerrillas in what
would more precisely be called special reconnaissance The nearly decade-long Civilian
Irregular Defense Group as Charles Simpson highlights ldquoinvolved thousands of
Vietnamese civilians millions of dollars and approximately 100 camps spread out from
the Demilitarized Zone to the Gulf of Siamrdquo247 This program unlike the Strategic
Hamlet Programs did not relocate villages but trained them to defend their own villages
which is captured by its original name--Village Defense Program248 While originally
defensive in nature it later evolved into an active defense sending out combat patrols as
early warning as well as interdicting Viet Cong or North Vietnamese units when these
villages were located in strategic locations such as astride to enemy lines of
communications
Another successful program that grew out of the necessity to have a quick
reaction force to react to Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacks on the Civilian
Irregular Defense Group camps was the Mobile Strike Forces better known as ldquoMike
Forcesrdquo The Mike Force was originally established in 1965 and formed from a battalion
of Chinese Nungs which is a tribal group originally from the Chinese and North
Vietnamese border The tenacity of these fighters had endeared them to the French and
247Simpson 95
248Ibid 99
101
were raised into ldquoNung Divisionsrdquo by the French and were settled into enclaves in South
Vietnam249
A similar program to the Mike Force was created called the Mobile Guerrilla
Force ldquoto conduct guerrilla warfare in the vast stretches of enemy-controlled territory
outside areas of operations of CIDG Campsrdquo250 An average Mobile Guerrilla Force was
made up of one Mike Force Company and a reconnaissance platoon As Charles Simpson
notes ldquoThe concept was to infiltrate these company-sized forces usually by foot and to
operate against the enemyrsquos lines of communications usually branches of the Ho Chi
Minh Trailrdquo251
All of these programs were without a doubt foreign internal defense missions
despite their ldquoguerrilla-like naturerdquo These indigenous forces were developed into
specialized but irregular units and capabilities all in an effort to defeat the Viet Cong
insurgents and disrupt North Vietnamese main force resupply and movements This was a
shaping effort for the overall US effort and was also overt It consisted of combat
support with Special Forces not only advising but actually commanding and leading
these units
North Vietnam
The Military Assistance Command Vietnam Special Observations Group was
established in 1963 with the task to pick up where the CIA had failed to conduct
249Ibid 120
250Ibid 124
251Ibid 125
102
operations in Laos and North Vietnamrdquo252 The Studies and Observation Group had four
principle covert missions under OPLAN 34A to insert and develop agent networks to
establish a fabricated resistance movement and misinformation campaign to conduct
maritime interdiction along the coast of North Vietnam and to conduct cross border
reconnaissance operations in Laos253 While considered the largest covert unconventional
warfare program since World War II the eight-year program from 1964 to 1972 had
mixed results At one end of the spectrum were the five hundred agents that upon
infiltration were neutralized or turned by the North to the successes in 1968 when the
North Vietnamese government began to fear the growing subversion However the US
policy makers feared a destabilized North Vietnamese government and for all intents and
purposes shut the programs in North Vietnam down once the Hanoi had been persuaded
to begin negotiations254 The most interesting aspect of this program was the use of
deception to make the North think a resistance was active The most noteworthy of these
efforts were the kidnapping of North Vietnamese citizens and exposing them to the fake
resistance organization known as the Sacred Sword of the Patriots League then returning
them to report to the information to their government
This was a covert unconventional warfare program and strategic shaping
operation While it was unsuccessful establishing an actual resistance the Sacred Sword
of the Patriots League was an interesting method that qualifies as an example of indirect
252Shultz xiii
253Ibid x-xi
254Ibid 330-331
103
support by using North Vietnamese citizens to unwittingly spread the rumor of the fake
resistance organization
El Salvador
Special Forces operations in El Salvador were a successful example of foreign
internal defense to help the military defeat the FMLN While this was an exceptional
example of how Special Forces could conduct foreign internal defense in direct support
to the El Salvadoran military it is routinely called an unconventional warfare operation
In fact it is identified this way in the manual that governs Special Forces operations FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations The FM 3-0520 explains
[Special Forces] operations in El Salvador during the 1980s are an example of [unconventional warfare as the decisive operation] In this instance [unconventional warfare] operations are conducted during what would appear to all but the [unconventional warfare] participants to be operations to promote peace never progressing through operations to deter aggression and resolve conflict or actual combat255
US direct support foreign internal defense was provided to El Salvador after a rocky
period of diplomatic engagement in which the US cut off economic and military aid due
to El Salvadorrsquos ruthless counterinsurgency operations against the FMLN which included
extensive human rights violations In early 1981 the FMLN had a nearly ten thousand-
man army poised and ready to overthrow the government until President Carter chose the
lesser of two evils and lifted the economic and military sanctions which turned the tide
255FM 3-0520 2-4
104
and allowed El Salvador to thwart the insurgents When President Reagan came into
office he was much more aggressive in his desire to thwart communist expansion 256
While other economic aid was being provided the US military group was allowed
by Congress to have a total of fifty-five personnel assigned to train equip and advise a
military that initially numbered around 12000 and would grow to nearly forty-two
thousand troops over a four year period257 The Special Forces advisors were part of the
Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams (OPATT) were also
restricted from conducting any direct combat operations Each OPATT team consisted of
three individuals assigned to a brigade which it was hoped would lead to better human
rights behavior and combat employment258 As Cecil Bailey highlights ldquoFor nearly eight
years OPATTS cycled through the brigades each one extending the progress of the
proceeding teamrdquo259 The three-man teams generally consisted of ldquoa combat-arms major
preferably with an [Special Forces] background and two [Special Forces nonshy
commissioned officers] or warrant officerrdquo260
The OPATTS were also not allowed to conduct combat operations with their
counter parts As Cecil Bailey notes lsquoThe restrictions against US military members
accompanying units on operations was especially onerous to the advisors who often
256James S Corum and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003) 329
257Ibid 333
258Cecil E Bailey ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
259Ibid
260Ibid 21
105
cited the restriction as affecting not only their relationship with their counterpart but also
their professional credibilityrdquo261 Cecil Bailey highlights the accomplishment of the
OPATTs ldquoContemporary studies evaluating the US military role in El Salvador often
praise the brigade advisers as being the leading contributors to combat effectiveness
improved human rights performance and professional behavior supporting constitutional
democratic valuesrdquo Considering that a few more than 140 Special Forces OPATT
advisors were employed during this conflict from 1985 to 1992 and were able to advise
forty battalions 40000 soldiers is impressive262 The best measure of effectiveness of
this foreign internal defense program comes from an FMLN commander Joaquin
Villallobosrsquo when he explained that ldquoputting American advisers in the brigades was the
most damaging thing that happened to them during the war He believed that the
adviserrsquos influence on the [El Salvadoran military] made them more professional and less
abusive [denying the FMLN] much of its earlier propaganda advantage and
recruiting appealrdquo263
Analysis of this conflict clearly shows that this was not unconventional warfare
but instead foreign internal defense conducted overtly and in direct support to the El
Salvadoran military although years later it would become clear that many of these
advisers were conducting combat advisory missions as well The OPATT advisory
program was the only military program conducted with no other conventional military
units participating thus making this a decisive operation
261Ibid 24
262Ibid 28
263Ibid 27
106
Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan
The operations in Afghanistan after 11 September provide a window into the
future of unconventional warfare The DOD had not been involved in an unconventional
warfare campaign of this magnitude since the Korean War The interoperability between
the CIA and special operations was unprecedented as well The preparation phase
happened from the moments after 11 September until the first CIA elements began to
infiltrate into Afghanistan which included political preparations for coalition support and
assistance with airfields and over flight rights as well as preparing the international
community and the American population for the armed response to 11 September The
CIA then established initial contact or reestablishing contacts from previous efforts in
Afghanistan Due to the compressed time schedule numerous Special Forces Operational
Detachment-Alphas infiltrated concurrently with the CIA paramilitary teams and rapidly
organized built-up and employed their Afghan counterparts264 The Special Forces and
CIA paramilitary worked in concert The Special Forces employed the Afghans guerrillas
in concert with US airpower to produce overwhelming combat power that outmatched the
Taliban At the same time the CIA subverted the Taliban by turning many of the
Talibanrsquos units through fear of destruction or through other incentives the most popular
being monetary ldquorewardsrdquo for changing sides Buying loyalty brought a whole new
meaning to the often used ldquoby with and throughrdquo is literally ldquoBUY with and throughrdquo
The Taliban was overthrown in less than two months with the interim
government of Hamid Karzai being established in mid-December This marked the shift
264CPT (now Major) Glenn Thomas conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
107
from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense as efforts transitioned to protect
the new government and its legitimacy over the coming months while at the same time
developing an internal security capability to disrupt or defeat future Taliban and Al
Qarsquoida threats This effort continues today
Until the transition this was initially a clandestine effort to infiltrate into
Afghanistan then transitioned to low-visibility operations The Special Forces
unconventional warfare operations became a decisive operation although this was not the
original plan in which they were to support the introduction of conventional forces This
was also an example of the first large-scale unconventional warfare operation utilizing
Special Forces in combat advisory approach since the OSS operations in World War II
The Afghans were not demobilized to a large extent but instead were used for
some time as militias supporting the Special Forces until they were transferred to national
control or sent home Later in the foreign internal defense operations the remaining
militias were replaced by Afghan Army units and finally disbanded or demobilized but
unlike the doctrinal seventh phase demobilization this took place sometime after the
conflict ended Once the conflict transitioned to the postconflict and unconventional
warfare transitioned to foreign internal defense the signature became overt and all
efforts by Special Forces became a supporting effort to the larger conventional
headquarters The operational approach had remained combat support with the goal
being to return to peacetime engagement and only a direct or indirect operational
approach necessary
108
Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines
Operations in the Philippines after 11 September were another component of
Operation Enduring Freedom campaign Referred to as Operations Enduring Freedom-
Philippines the mission was to support the Philippine governmentrsquos counterinsurgency or
counterterrorism efforts to defeat the Abu Sayyaf an extremist-Islamic insurgent group
with ties to Al Qarsquoida Although a classic foreign internal defense mission the actual
mission statement for the post-11 September counterinsurgency operations in the
Philippines uses unconventional warfare as the operational term
On order in support of Operation Freedom Eagle FOB 11 conduct[s] [unconventional warfare] operations in the southern Philippines through by and with the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] to assist the GRP [Government of the Republic of the Philippines] in the destruction of terrorist organizations and separate the population from those Groupsrdquo265
In this definition the correct operational task should have been foreign internal defense or
even counterterrorism not unconventional warfare This mission statement also did not
help the Philippine government that was telling its citizens that the Special Forces were in
the Philippines conducting counterinsurgency training which it called ldquoExercise
Balikatanrdquo which means shoulder to shoulder Because of the negative political
implications for the elected Philippine government they imposed a US force cap limiting
the number of American personnel involved to six hundred266
To date this foreign internal defense operation has been extremely successful
having forced Abu Sayyaf from the Basilan Island and operations continue to defeat this
265Dr C H Briscoe ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
266Robert D Kaplan Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground (New York NY Random House 2005) 146
109
organization while training the Philippine Army to conduct effective counterinsurgency
operations against the other insurgent groups that are a continued threat to the
government Despite the use of unconventional warfare in the original mission statement
this effort has been a classic overt foreign internal defense mission Since there is no
other US military effort in the country it is the decisive operations at the operational-
level and a shaping operation in the larger context of the Global War on Terror Unlike
the operations in Afghanistan the operational approach in the Philippines is direct
support
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operations with the Kurdish resistance organization in Northern Iraq provide an
excellent example of unconventional warfare supporting conventional maneuver forces It
is even more spectacular that an American Special Forces Group in this case 10th
Special Forces Group (Airborne) numbering 5200 personnel (and not all of these were
inside of Northern Iraq) was able to coordinate the efforts of over fifty thousand Kurdish
Peshmerga fighters and to succeed in fixing thirteen of Saddam Husseinrsquos twenty
divisions along a 350-kilometer front267 Also of interest is the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistanrsquos division-sized attack to regain occupied salient along the border of Iran
which was controlled by the Al Qarsquoida affiliated group called Ansar al Islam The
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan were supported by a Special Forces Company working as
advisors to coordinate indirect fires and close air support
267Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Linda Robinson Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces (New York NY Public Affairs 2004) 299
110
From the night of infiltration the longest since World War II into Northern Iraq
the timeline was once again compressed and Special Forces detachments began to engage
the Iraqirsquos along the forward line of troops known as the green-line268 Combat
operations started quickly because the Kurdish resistance was already a large well-
organized insurgent organization that had been working with the CIA for decades and
only needed minimal training in the lethal aid that was provided by the US269 Although
combat operations along the green-line began within hours of the infiltration the first
major event was the attack on Ansar al Islam which began the morning of 28 March
2003 This two day attack saw Ansar al Islam routed and the Kurdish Peshmerga able to
liberate this salient Once this threat was eliminated the focus turned to the green-line
Ten days later Kirkuk and Mosul fell and operations in the North transitioned to what
seemed like postconflict stabilization Special Forces had successfully conducted the
second unconventional warfare operations in less than two years270 One other lesson of
this conflict was the unprecedented work that Special Forces conducted in concert with
the Kurdish underground Most of the Special Forcesrsquo doctrine is focused on ldquoguerrilla
warfarerdquo versus the clandestine arts of working with undergrounds
It is also interesting to note that 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) was unable
to develop a similar capability with Shia in Southern Iraq However unlike the Kurds the
Shia did not have a self-governed sanctuary like the Kurds and were heavily oppressed
268Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq
269Robert Baer See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism (New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001) 171-213
270Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq
111
by the Iraqi regime A final unconventional warfare effort was attempted using Iraqi ex-
patriots who received only rudimentary training prior to being inserted into Iraq
generally called the Free Iraqi Force271 Part of this force had been trained by the
conventional Army in Hungry prior to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Elements of 5th Special Forces Group were given the task to advise the Free Iraqi Forces
but the general sense among those involved was that the these Iraqis did not have the
training nor did the Special Forces advisors have the relationships with these
counterparts to be an effective force This was an example of a good idea gone bad in
many respects Had Special Forces trained these elements developed strong relationships
with their counterparts and then been inserted with them into Iraq as part of the overall
plan their effectiveness as a political tool might have been increased272
The Special Forces would then be called upon to continue the hunt for former
regime elements At the same time they began to train and operate with the 36th
Commandos These operations were successful but the growing insurgency was not
addressed until it had already grown exponentially Special Forces did everything in its
power to keep from conducting advisory support and were finally let of the hook when
271Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Robinson 275 Some confusion rings the FIF which was used to describe two groups of Iraqi ex-patriots one that was trained in civil affairs in Hungary and another element of soldiers Because they were all commonly referred to as FIF this is the convention that is used here
272Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and numerous discussions with individuals involved with this mission in Southern Iraq from August 2004 to the May 2006 and Robinson 299
112
the conventional military out of necessity established the Multi-National Security
Transition Command-Iraq273
Operations in Iraq had once again proven the usefulness of unconventional
warfare and at the same the limitations In the north during the first few days after
infiltration the Special Forces were operating clandestinely until major combat
operations in the north began This was an example of unconventional warfare shaping
the environment for the conventional decisive operation using combat advisors and
support including coordinated air interdiction Finally there was no demobilization of
Kurdish resistance members by Special Forces however there were inquiries into the
demobilization plan for each of the Kurdish factions274 It became quickly evident that
this was a task of enormous size when the current militias may be needed in the future
Because of this these elements were not demobilized but continued to operate as militias
in support of US Special Forces teams conducting foreign internal defense275
In the south efforts failed to generate a resistance force first because of the preshy
existing constraints on the Shia and second the warrsquos tempo was so fast the requirements
for an unconventional warfare effort to support the invasion were overcome by events
The Free Iraqi Forces were another element of the unconventional warfare puzzle in Iraq
but their contribution even politically was less than stellar Had the correct amount of
273Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) Available from httpwwwmnstci iraqcentcommilmissionhtm Internet accessed on 29 September 2004
274Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq April 2003
275Ibid
113
time energy and Special Forces advisors been elements of this program it might have
been more successful
Summary
The history of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense whether overt
or covert provides an interesting backdrop to the argument of whether these two
missions continue to be viable today and into the future Fifty years after the birth of
Special Forces and before the events of 11 September the decision was made that
unconventional warfare as defined by the Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann was no
longer a viable mission and would never be conducted as envisioned Less than three
years later Special Forces has successfully prosecuted two unconventional warfare
campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan using indigenous forces
instead of massive conventional formations and the other a shaping operation in northern
Iraq using the indigenous Kurds However despite these successes the current debate
focuses on the use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense against non-
state actors in a short-sighted version of the previous fifty year argument
114
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS
With an understanding of the historical background of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine this chapter will answer the secondary questions
What is unconventional warfare What is foreign internal defense and How are they
related Also this chapter will determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are applicable against non-state actors the final tertiary question The
combination of these answers will set the conditions to the answer the primary research
question in chapter 5 are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense as
currently defined applicable to current and future Special Forces operations
To answer these questions a comparison must be made between the results of the
last chapter the historical application of these two missions and their current definitions
The analysis will determine if there is a relationship between the two missions and will
conclude with the future of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
special emphasis on their application in the Global War on Terrorism and against non-
state actors
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare
Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition
In introducing this problem unconventional warfare was defined in chapter 1 to
provide the reader a point of departure for determining if the definition adequately
captured the historical application of unconventional warfare Once again the definition
of unconventional warfare is
115
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion276
An analysis of this definition provides some interesting findings when applied to the
historical examples presented in the previous chapter First the definition is correct that
these are ldquomilitary and paramilitary operationsrdquo They are military operations in that
unconventional warfare is used as an armed tool in place of conventional military
operations or to support other conventional operations
Second it is true that most of these operations have been of long duration
however the length of the operation is dependent on three factors first and foremost is
how much risk the political leadership is willing to take by putting Special Forces
soldiers into the target country earlier than declared hostilities to build an effective
insurgent force second if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or if
it is a shaping operation If it is the decisive operation then it will generally take longer
but if it is a shaping operation the length of time historically has been shorter While
historical examples may show that shaping operations are shorter operations such as the
Jedburghs and more recently 10th Group in Northern Iraq would have been more
effective if infiltration had occurred earlier The two contemporary examples of
unconventional warfare Afghanistan and Iraq validate this theory Afghanistan taking
longer because the unconventional warfare effort was the decisive operation so from
infiltration of teams in early October it took until mid-December to overthrow the
276JP 1-02
116
Taliban In Iraq unconventional and conventional operations started at the same time
with the Special Forces having very little time to organize or build up forces and within
three weeks the Coalition had successfully overthrown a much tougher opponent
Saddam Hussein
Based on current and proposed operational concepts which suggest the US
military can successfully defeat a country like Iraq in days versus weeks unconventional
warfare that begins concurrently with combat operations would not be viable as the
unconventional warfare effort in Southern Iraq demonstrate277 In this concept it will be
imperative to begin unconventional warfare months or weeks earlier than the planned
invasion The final conclusion to be drawn from this is that a time standard on this type of
operation may not be of use any longer however there are serious repercussions for not
giving Special Forces the time required to build an effective insurgency or resistance
Third unconventional warfare encompasses organizing training equipping
supporting and directing of the indigenous insurgent organization Each of these
elements are tasks in and of themselves that can be done indirectly directly or in combat
support roles They could be done indirectly such as conducting all of these tasks in a
third-party country or even through a third-party organization or front Examples of the
direct method may include conducting all these tasks in liberated sanctuary or safe areas
that do not include combat Obviously combat support would involve these tasks being
conducted while in a combat environment with the Special Forces or supporting agency
taking the same risks as the insurgents
277Brigadier General David Fastabend ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo (briefing slides for Joint Forces Command 12 April 2004) slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquo
117
Fourth one often missed component of the definition is the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo
This means that this is not a US-only definition but applies universally In other words
the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo could be Iran Syria China Cuba North Korea and even al Qarsquoida
not just the US In fact Abu Musab al-Zarqawirsquos operations in Iraq are nothing more than
an al Qarsquoida ldquoSpecial Forcesrdquo advisors conducting unconventional warfare by providing
training advising funding and a form of precision targeting--the suicide bomber--to the
Sunni insurgents278 Although not part of the definition this also highlights the
requirement to define the type of external support provided indirect direct and combat
in much the same way foreign internal defense support is described279
Fifth the definition attempts to capture all of the oddities of unconventional
warfare including the tactics--guerrilla warfare subversion and sabotage as well as the
environments and signatures of these operations--direct offensive low visibility covert
or clandestine The final part of the definition discusses ldquointelligence gatheringrdquo and
ldquoescape and evasionrdquo However these two elements apply to every Special Forces
mission and are not unconventional warfare specific This has led to the confusion of
skills versus missions the most notable being Advanced Special Operations Techniques
which are advanced skills that apply to all Special Forces missions and therefore cannot
be a mission in itself
278Major D Jones ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo (5 February 2005) scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
279Major (now Lieutenant Colonel) Mark Grdovic Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
118
Lastly the definition fails to capture the essence or purpose of unconventional
warfare--that it is the support to an insurgency Joint Publication 1-02 defines support to
insurgency as the ldquosupport provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of
a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflictrdquo280 This
definition clearly defines the purpose of unconventional warfare in much the same way
the foreign internal defense definition provides a purpose--to help another country free
and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency The purpose is
important as Hy S Rothstein shows because the lack of purpose may be the entire reason
for the confusion about unconventional warfare
Unfortunately the purpose of unconventional warfare is not so easily defined Certainly it must serve the national interests of the United States However there is no clear task so easily defined as the ldquodestruction of the enemy armyrdquo and no method so easily specified as ldquothe direct application of violent forcerdquo Consequently the basic questions about unconventional war have never been adequately answered281
While Hy Rothstein is correct in that the purpose and task is not defined in the definition
if the definition is taken in the context of the unconventional warfare doctrine then they
are readily apparent the task is to support an insurgency against a hostile regime or
occupier and the purpose is to overthrow the regime or remove the occupier Addressing
the task and purpose as outlined here may clear up the misunderstanding of the definition
280JP 1-02
281Hy S Rothstein Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare (Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006) 21
119
Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare
There are seven phases of US-sponsored insurgency the military definition being
unconventional warfare The seven phases are preparation initial contact infiltration
organization buildup combat employment and demobilization282 There have been
arguments as recently as 2001 by senior Special Forces leaders that the seven-phased
unconventional warfare model is no longer valid However based on the most recent
operations the seven-phased model is extremely accurate in describing the support to the
insurgency although the phases may have been compressed by the same circumstances
that affected Jedburgh operations in France--Special Forces were not infiltrated into the
sector until conventional combat operations were already underway283
Phase I of unconventional warfare ldquopreparationrdquo includes the decision to use
military force against a threatening nation the planning and the preparations for its use
and the psychological preparations of the threatening nationrsquos population the
international community and the American public284 Some confusion exists with respect
to another operational term operational preparation of the environment which is easily
confused with this phase of unconventional warfare Thomas OrsquoConnell DOD Assistant
Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict provides some insight into
what operational preparation of the environment is and is not during an interview with
282Department of the Army Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations (Washington DC Department of the Army April 2003) 1-11 to 1-17
283Kershner 2-2
284FM 3-05201 1-11
120
Linda Robinson ldquoItrsquos becoming familiar with the area in which you might have to
work Itrsquos nonhostile recon Itrsquos not intrusive Others without military background
may view it as saber rattling but itrsquos as far from that as you can getrdquo285 Linda Robinson
continues ldquoIn the 1980rsquos OrsquoConnell said special operations forces spent lots of time
preparing to respond to hijackings kidnappings and takeovers of embassies To do that
they visited embassies and airports and examined possible helicopter landing zones and
assault zonesrdquo286
An example of the residual confusion can be found in an article by Colonel
Walter Herd ldquoIn war fighting if your fighting by with amp [sic] through indigenous forces
or if yoursquore collecting intelligence and conducting operational preparation of the
environment by with and through indigenous forces your conducting unconventional
warfarerdquo287 This confusion is politically sensitive in terms of how another nation may
define unconventional warfare If they define it as support to an insurgency then
obviously just conducting operational preparation of the environment if it is mistaken for
the first phase of unconventional warfare could have grave repercussions much like the
mistaken unconventional warfare mission statement during Operation Enduring Freedom-
Philippines discussed in the previous chapter Thomas OrsquoConnell is correct when he
stipulates that operational preparation of the environment can apply to any special
285Linda Robinson ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet accessed on 12 May 2006
286Ibid
287Colonel Walter Herd ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service (13 June 2005) available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet accessed on 12 May 06
121
operations mission from counterterrorism to counterproliferation With respect to
unconventional warfare it may allow long-term relationships with host nation partners to
develop just like they do during normal foreign internal defense training missions that
may ease the initial contact phase of unconventional warfare if that were ever necessary
An example of this relationship--US Special Forces conducted foreign internal
defense in a country then for some reason the government was overthrown and these
former military personnel that had worked with the Special Forces are now the cadre of
the insurgency In fact due to vast number of coalition operations and combined training
exercises the long-term relationships that are developing throughout the world may
change the nature of the second phase--initial contact Instead of initial contact it may be
reminiscent of the CIA contacting former associates in Afghanistan or in Northern Iraq
about a new endeavor--overthrowing the current regime
Phase II ldquoinitial contactrdquo was originally in the CIA charter288 The purpose of
this phase is to conduct ldquoan accurate assessment of the potential resistance and
[arrange] for the reception and initial assistancerdquo of the US operational elements that will
be infiltrated during the next phase289 This is generally a covert or clandestine activity
normally conducted in one of two ways First of all this initial contact is likely to be the
first time that a representative of the US government contacts or approaches an insurgent
organization that has only recently emerged or has never been contacted by the US
before This could be due to any number of reasons such as political or geographic
isolation The second type of approach the inherently easier of the two is with a
288FM 3-05201 1-12 and Bank 160-2 173
289FM 3-05201 1-14
122
previously contacted group that is now in a position of influence that the US would like
to capitalize on to further US national interests Although in contact with US
representatives prior to this time in Phase II this group is being asked for the first time to
work with the US in an unconventional warfare campaign to overthrow the regime As
explained in the description of Phase I having contacts with numerous groups throughout
the world greatly benefits the US and increased the speed of response in a crisis Also
during this phase if the security environment is high risk for US personnel resistance
personnel could be exfiltrated trained in a third party country and when ready inserted
as the only operational element that will infiltrate in phase III--infiltration--instead of US
operational elements
Phase III ldquoinfiltrationrdquo is the entry of the first DOD operational elements into the
insurgentsrsquo areas and has been the doctrinal hand-off between the other governmental
agencies and Special Forces290 This will be the first significant presence in theater
which may now include forward operational bases or other command control or logistics
nodes supporting the committed operational forces In indirect approaches this may not
be the infiltration of US operational elements but newly trained indigenous operational
assets
Phase IV ldquoorganizationrdquo ensures that the indigenous forces are effectively
organized for the buildup phase Phase V291 This has historically included in-processing
issuing weapons pay oaths to the future government and medical screenings However
290FM 3-05201 1-15 3-1 2 and Banks 172-175 and John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
291FM 3-05201 1-15
123
this process has been much more difficult to accomplish in the compressed timelines and
large numbers of insurgents to in-process during the last two unconventional warfare
efforts The concept is sound and protects US interests by providing a record of what
training was conducted and weapons were issued It also provides a means of providing
the emerging government some records of those with training that could work as militias
or conventional soldiers The end state of this phase is an insurgent force that is organized
by function and mission capable of growth if necessary and with the appropriate
command and control structures in place
Phase V ldquobuild-uprdquo is the growth of the insurgency The operational elements
must balance the assigned mission with security and logistical support capability In
insurgency it is not the size that matters but effects and survivability Therefore the size
of the insurgent force is not based on preconceived end strength but on three aspects
effect that needs to be generated for mission accomplishment the constraints of the
security environment and the logistical constraints292 In a less security-constrained
environment with freedom of movement such as liberated areas or sanctuary areas then
larger forces can be organized and built-up In a constrained security environment for
example urban areas smaller cellular networks are used for security and survivability
The last aspect of build-up is the ability of the area to support an insurgent organization
In rural or agrarian societies that mass produce food then the population will be able to
logistically support a larger insurgent group In a constrained environment such as a city
292Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) 1-4 to 1-5
124
or if the counterinsurgency forces have implemented rationing then the area is going to
be less capable to support a movement larger than a small cell
Phase VI ldquocombat employmentrdquo begins with the offensive air or ground
campaign by conventional forces or if purely an unconventional warfare campaign such
as Afghanistan a Special Forces and indigenous ground campaign293 The insurgents will
conduct operations either until link-up with conventional forces or the defeat of the
government or occupying forces leading to the eventual take over of the country If the
insurgents are unable to gain victory or control of the environment they may be forced
into one of the following options (1) conduct a retreat withdrawal or delaying action to
trade space for time (2) disperse into small cells and hide within the population or
restricted terrain (3) establish a defense in restricted terrain if a larger force to regroup
reorganize and prepare for further offensive operations or (4) withdraw to sanctuary
areas which may be in an adjoining country The worst case would be for the insurgents
to be decisively engaged and destroyed
Phase VII ldquodemobilizationrdquo has historically meant disarming and disbanding the
insurgentsrsquo overt military forces such as guerrillas and returning them to their pre-crisis
place in society However if the experiences since 11 September are an indicator in the
future the majority of insurgent forces will transition to local militias and general-purpose
forces in preparation for establishing a secure environment until national police and
military forces can take over this role entirely At such a time as a nation-wide security
force is employed then the remaining ldquomilitiasrdquo or ldquoirregularsrdquo will be demobilized by
their government Historically US unconventional warfare efforts have ended in three
293FM 3-05201 1-17 3-1
125
ways demobilization termination of support with no demobilization and recently in
Iraq and Afghanistan the insurgent forces have become local militias and in some cases
national forces and are not actually demobilized until well into foreign internal defense
operations Because of these three possible outcomes ldquodemobilizationrdquo may not be the
best description of this phase Even in the unconventional warfare doctrinal manual FM
3-05201 demobilization is said to be a ldquomajor activity of transitionrdquo294 ldquoTransitionrdquo is a
much more accurate term than demobilization
Foreign Internal Defense
Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition
Interestingly the epitome of a clear definition is Foreign Internal Defense JP 1shy
02 defines Foreign Internal Defense as ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of
a government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo295 JP 3-071 Joint
Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes
Foreign Internal Defense into three types of support indirect direct (not involving
combat operations) and combat support296 As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories
represent significantly different levels of US diplomatic and military commitment and
riskrdquo297
294Ibid 4-2 295JP 1-02
296Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
297Ibid I-4 126
There is also some debate if Special Forces conduct foreign internal defense or
instead conduct a lesser operation under foreign internal defense such as
counterinsurgency or training since this is an overarching term for a myriad of
interagency programs that span all the elements of a supporting nationrsquos national
power298 The argument is valid although the clarity of this operation comes from the
part of the definition that states the conditions to be met ldquoto free or protect its society
from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo This portion of the definition is the
driving factor behind efforts of Special Forces The fact that this effort takes an
interagency effort supporting another governmentrsquos internal defense and development
plan provides context to the solution which is important in this day of the military
assuming a heavy burden in Iraq and Afghanistan A similar argument could be made
with respect to counterinsurgency and if the US actually conducts this operation or only
supports another countryrsquos counterinsurgency efforts However if insurgency is an
overarching term for any type of armed resistance aimed at either the overthrow of a
government or the removal of an occupying power then there are instances such as Iraq
where the initial counterinsurgency efforts may be a unilateral US effort or as a coalition
As the new government is established the operational approach begins to shift from
combat support In efforts such as the Philippines the effort is direct support to help the
host nation defeat an internal threat while meeting US national objectives of defeating al
Qarsquoida associated networks
298LTC (retired) Mark Lauber Multiple discussion with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
127
So although debate may exist about the role of Special Forces in foreign internal
defense the definition is clear where the unconventional warfare definition is not in the
condition or end-state of the operation The foreign internal defense doctrine also
provides the three levels of support which further clarifies the types of support provided
These two elements may be the solution for clarifying the unconventional warfare
definition
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Although it is easy to understand that unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are different and likely opposite in their end states considering the historical
background presented in the last chapter it is difficult to tie this directly to why words
matter Some may say that as long as the Special Forces operators understands what they
are supposed to be doing on the ground at the tactical level everything else will fall in
place However this argument is much more fundamental than it would seem Regardless
of the similarities in tactics techniques and procedures at the tactical level it is the end
state that matters most Iraq provides a good example of this concept Abu Musab
Zarqawi beheaded prisoners while videotaping the brutal execution and received
relatively minor international reaction Compare this to the global reaction and
international outcry when the US soldiers humiliated the prisoners at Abu Ghriab prison
Although the actions of the US soldiers were extremely unprofessional and an
embarrassment to the US the prisoners did not die horrendous deaths The beheading de-
legitimized the US and Iraqi efforts because it added to the sense of insecurity and
violence and appealed to younger members of the Muslim society that were prone to
128
jihadi-propaganda At the same time the acts of the US soldiers de-legitimized the US
and Iraqi efforts by completely countering the US information operationrsquos efforts to
portray the US as a liberator The US wanted to show how the US was freeing the Iraqis
from the oppression of Saddam yet the Iraqi citizens were being mistreated by their so-
called liberators Had the soldiers understood the concept of legitimacy and that every
one of their actions either helped or hurt the US and the fledgling Iraqi governmentrsquos
legitimacy and with it the chances of success they may not have made these mistakes
The same can be said of US militaryrsquos preference for kinetic effects versus
nonkinetics in counterinsurgency Had the US military understood from the beginning of
the postconflict phase that legitimacy was the most important commodity for US efforts
then ldquocordon and searchrdquo would have been replaced with the ldquocordon and knockrdquo early in
the conflict Instead this concept took nearly two years to be implemented across Iraq
While these are not specifically Special Forces examples they are used here since the
background knowledge is more widely known
Logical Lines of Operations
One method for clarifying the relationship between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense is a logical lines of operation comparison Logical lines of
operations are defined by Dr Jack D Kem as ldquoa cognitive operational framework
planning construct used to define the concept of multiple and often disparate actions
arranged in a framework unified by purpose All logical lines of operation should lead
129
to the [Center of Gravity or COG]rdquo299 In the following examples the short title for the
logical line of operation is labeled and the operational objectives the conditions decisive
points or effects that must be met along that line are defined by boxed number at the
bottom of the chart The corresponding numbered boxes are then placed on the lines of
operations which they support As Dr Kem explains ldquo[operational] objectives in a logical
line of operation depict causal relationships that are both linear and nonlinear
Operational objectives are depicted along a logical line of operation the same operational
objectives may be depicted along more than one logical line of operationrdquo300
While both of the lines of operation charts provide large number of operational
objectives boxes or circles and their corresponding numbers it should be noted that the
actual objectives chosen will depend on the operational considerations--environment
signature relationship and approach In fact some of the objectives could become lines
of operations of their own especially as these lines of operations are translated into
mission orders for subordinate units It should also be noted that the following lines of
operations are for the most part military lines of operations and support or are supported
by the interagency and the conventional military lines of operations across the elements
of national power--diplomatic informational military and economic--when appropriate
Finally because information operations are so important to this type of warfare they are
integral to every objective and therefore there is not an additional information operation
line of operation
299Dr Jack D Kem Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade (Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd) 34-35
300Ibid
130
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 2 provides an example of the logical lines of operation for unconventional
warfare The diagram captures all of the operational considerations-environment
signature relationship and approach and the logical lines of operation The operational
considerations have a significant effect on how the operational objectives are reached
For example one operational objective might be to organize an indigenous resistance
How this is done depends on the environment and the constraints of the operational
signature So in a covert operation conducted in a hostile environment a direct or combat
approach may be used However under the same considerations but in a denied area
where US personnel cannot penetrate the security environment indigenous personnel
may have to be trained in an adjacent country and then reinserted into the operational
area
131
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines
The logical lines shown in figure 2 are examples of the types of Special Forces
specific logical lines of operation along upon which they would apply their
unconventional warfare advising training and equipping capabilities and skills In this
example the logical lines of operation and the longer descriptions are
132
1 Gain Popular Support US advisors ensure that all operations take into
consideration the population Operations are also conducted to show the ineptitude of the
government and its failings to protect the population and its basic needs which would
include attacks on governmental infrastructure
2 Gain International Support Actions must also take into consideration the
international community One of the key elements of this effort is the insurgentrsquos ability
to adhere to the laws of land warfare in order to gain belligerent status throughout the
conflict Other factors include highlighting the governments or occupiers excessive use of
force or human rights violations
3 Develop Insurgent Infrastructure Organize and employ operational
intelligence logistics and political infrastructure infiltrate government agencies develop
capabilities tied to the desired effect provide lethal and nonlethal support
4 Defeat Government forces (or the occupying forces) This is done either
physically or psychologically by attacking the security forces center of gravity and
critical vulnerabilities and capabilities while protecting the insurgent force and US effort
support Coalition land forces during invasion if conducting shaping operations
5 Prepared for Postconflict The insurgents with the help of the US begin to
develop the long-range plans on preparing the environment for the postconflict phases by
establishing underground or shadow governments from the local to national level
identifying the personnel that will take over the key government positions at the
transition secure or protect key infrastructure and psychologically prepare the
population for the transition
133
6 Shape for the Combined Forces Land Component Commander When
unconventional warfare is a shaping operation for a larger conventional decisive
operations then the insurgents set the conditions such as forcing the continued
commitment of forces to rear area security providing intelligence and guides
establishing downed aircrew networks and seizing or securing limited objectives
In this case the center of gravity is the population The unconventional warfare
end state would be the de-legitimized hostile government or an occupying power
overthrown and conditions set for the establishment and protection of a new government
Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis provide a good
example of the logical lines of operation in foreign internal defense information
operations security operations development of security forces reestablishing essential
service developing government infrastructure and promoting economic growth301 All of
the logical lines of operation are aimed at the center of gravity--the people Like the
insurgents the government must gain and maintain its legitimacy from the people The
foreign internal defense end state is a ldquosecure and stable environment maintained by
indigenous forces under the direction of a legitimate national government that is
freely elected and accepts economic pluralismrdquo302
301Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
302Ibid
134
Figure 3 provides another example of possible logical lines of operations again
related to Special Forces foreign internal defense capabilities They are
1 Security Operations The first priority for any government facing an insurgency
is to establish a secure environment through population control measure offensive
operations such as search and attack cordon and search or cordon and knock to deny the
insurgentsrsquo access to the population and freedom of movement
2 Gain Popular Support Gaining and maintaining the support of the population is
the overall goal and path to victory since the population is the center of gravity therefore
it is imperative for long-term success that the population views the government as
legitimate It is equally important for the US effort to be viewed as legitimate versus
being viewed as an occupier or supporting a puppet government
3 Gain International Support It is also important for the governmentrsquos internal
defense efforts to be legitimized accepted and supported by the international community
To be successful most governments will rely on the international community to provide
economic aid or relief of debt and moral support
4 Defeat Insurgents If done correctly the first three lines should de-legitimize
the insurgents and lead to their lasting defeat This line will attack the hard-core
insurgents Some may succumb to offers of amnesty but most will need to be killed or
captured through offensive operations
5 Develop Host Nation Internal Security Internal security forces such as local
and national police forces key facility protection corps diplomat security personnel
coast guard criminal investigation paramilitary forces for counterinsurgency local and
national level special weapons and tactics capabilities will be necessary to defeat the
135
internal threat as a law enforcement matter The coalition forces will provide security for
the entire country Then as the internal security forces are trained the coalition will
transition to only protecting the nation from external threats until such a time as the
actual national military force is trained equipped and can conduct unilateral operations
As in the unconventional warfare model the population is once again the center
of gravity The end state is a legitimate government that the population trusts and is able
to detect and defeat internal and external threats
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation
136
Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 4 now builds on the previous two sections and shows the significance of
the differences between these two operations In the figure the center of gravity is
depicted by the box The sphere floats in this box and its legitimacy is affected by the
success or failures of US support Although both unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are depicted simultaneously only one operation would be conducted at
anyone time against a government Beginning with the unconventional warfare effort on
the left the logical lines of operations affect the legitimacy of the government In a
perfect situation the government is unable to counter this threat and the government loses
legitimacy and ultimately fails leading to the insurgent victory which takes place when
the ldquosphererdquo is dislodged to the right This success can be further enhanced if
conventional forces are added to the equation which in theory will cause a much faster
defeat of the enemy government
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model
137
If on the other hand this is a foreign internal defense mission the US efforts
along the logical lines of operation are aimed at supporting the government and
attempting to defeat or dislocate the insurgency If operations progress well along the
logical lines of operation then the population begins to favor the government pushing
the sphere to the left If done correctly the sphere will continue to move left as the
military in concert with a responsive government provides a secure environment and
will ultimately lead to the separation of the insurgents from the populations Success for
this foreign internal defense is a strong legitimate government capable of identifying and
defeating subversion lawlessness and insurgency on their own
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
There is no discussion in doctrine of a transition between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense In fact the idea that unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are related has never really been articulated In a major operation or
campaign involving conflict and postconflict environments there is an identifiable
transition period between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The
transition between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense happens at the
point when US or Coalition forces have removed the regime and have become the
occupying power or have installed an indigenous governing body even if only for the
interim
US forces had a difficult time identifying that the insurgency was growing
Special Forces understood that something was happening but didnrsquot understand clearly
138
that what was taking place was a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense in both Iraq and Afghanistan Even if they may have suspected that the
transition was taking place finding and neutralizing the top fifty-five of the former
regime in Iraq and senior al Qarsquoida and Taliban leadership in Afghanistan became
priority one This was likely due to the fact that the goal was regime removal but the
order to kill or capture the top fifty-five led to the over-focus on this task by Special
Forces and the other special operations forces
In Iraq more so than Afghanistan the insurgents spent the first two months
establishing their underground or clandestine command control intelligence and lines of
communication networks Once their networks were established and secure then they
began to increase their capability to prosecute terrorism guerrilla warfare and in some
place like Fallujah and An Anbar province a low-level form of mobile warfare having
been able to organize and employ large forces capable of holding terrain for short periods
of time In Afghanistan due to a much smaller population of pro-Taliban and al Qarsquoida
fighters and less urbanized terrain the insurgency has grown much more slowly over the
last five years and will continue to grow at a slower rate By the time that Special Forces
and the conventional military identified a transition to foreign internal defense the
insurgency had already escalated well into the guerrilla warfare stage Had this transition
been identified earlier counterinsurgency operations could have been conducted to
disrupt the insurgentsrsquo clandestine networks before they could be established and the
insurgents could gain the initiative
139
The unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense transition point can be
modeled using ldquothe Staterdquo versus ldquothe Counter-Staterdquo relationship303 The State is the
enemy government or an occupying power The Counter-State would be the insurgent
elements assisted by or in conjunction with US forces The goal is to either remain or
become the State For example the US and its coalition partners including the supported
insurgents are the Counter-State and use military force to overthrow the regime or the
State
The transition point is the point at which the Counter-State successfully defeats
the regime and becomes ldquothe new Staterdquo An important revelation for the new State
happens at the transition point The new State must immediately switch its mindset and
tactics to protect itself in order to now remain the State The transition from the Counter-
State to the State corresponds to the transition between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense as well as the transition between conflict and postconflict
So what happens to ldquothe old Staterdquo At the time the old State becomes the
Counter-State it has two options accept defeat or not If it chooses defeat then the
postconflict nation building will occur more rapidly and with less violence than has been
encountered in Iraq as in the case of Germany and Japan after they were occupied by the
Allies in World War II If the Counter-state does not accept defeat then it begins using
303The State versus Counter-State theory was originally based on a presentation on the relationship between the counterinsurgent and the insurgent by Dr Gordon McCormick US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division presented at the Unconventional Warfare Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC for further discussion of Dr McCormickrsquos ldquoDiamond modelrdquo see Lieutenant Colonel (P) Eric P Wendtrsquos article ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
140
tactics appropriate to its capabilities either political or military or a combination to
regain its State status William Flavin explains these options in his article on conflict
termination ldquoWhen the friendly forces can freely impose their will on the adversary the
opponent may have to accept defeat terminate active hostilities or revert to other types
of conflict such as geopolitical actions or guerrilla warfarerdquo304 The former regime
elements in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are examples of new Counter-States that
have not accepted defeat
The confusion between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
comes much like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan when the US and the Coalition became
the State prior to the end of major combat operations Flavin explains that the transition
point or what he calls conflict termination is ldquothe formal end of fighting not the end of
conflictrdquo305 In Iraq after the regime was defeated combat operations were still ongoing
but inadequate steps were taken to ensure that the US and coalition protected the interim
government and themselves as the State
The fact that Special Forces never positively identified this transition and
continued to conduct what they thought was unconventional warfare versus attempting to
disrupt the budding insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan is important This failure to
identify the shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense had a
detrimental effect on US stabilization operations First the unconventional warfare
mindset focused Special Forcesrsquo continued efforts on hunting former regime elements or
304William Flavin ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet accessed on 24 August 2004
305Ibid
141
on other activities that were tangential or irrelevant to securing the State The mindset
was that the mission was not over until all of the key members of the former regime were
killed or captured In Iraq this focus was provided by the ldquo55-most wantedrdquo deck of
cards In Afghanistan the hunt for Usama bin Laden and his associates continued
unabated with all efforts focused on him
In both cases Special Forces efforts were focused on single individuals with little
regard for other more crucial missions aimed at securing the environment and the State
This allowed the insurgents and the foreign fighters to establish underground elements-shy
command intelligence operational and support networks The establishment of
underground organizations allowed the insurgency to transition from a latent or incipient
phase to the guerrilla warfare phase
The Transition Curve Model
One of the key observations of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is that at
some point in both conflicts the operations shifted from conflict to postconflict and for
Special Forces particularly from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense The
question that arises is where did this ldquoshiftrdquo or ldquotransitionrdquo take place with relation to
time space or effort As shown in figure 5 graphing these operations with respect to
time and overall US effort including unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
operations a pattern emerges that models what would be the ldquobest caserdquo scenario--a nice
clean bell curve that goes from minimal US effort and Special Forces presence in the
peacetime engagement phases and begins to rise as the decision is made to use military
force to overthrow or defeat another government At the decisive point the conflict phase
has been successful and the enemy government is defeated which signifies the shift from 142
conflict to postconflict This model provides a framework for mapping progress and for
planning campaigns
The Transition Curve (see figure 5) was originally developed to model Special
Forcesrsquo participation in full spectrum operations focused first on the seven phases of US-
sponsored unconventional warfare second on the identification of the conflict
termination point which marks the transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense and finally to model a nine-phased foreign internal defense operation
and the eventual return to peacetime engagement306 The graph was developed to correct
the doctrinal misunderstanding surrounding the Special Forces missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan307 The transition point draws a distinct line between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense to reduce confusion
306The nine-phased foreign internal defense model was developed by the author based on his experience in Kosovo to capture the salient steps that must take place to return to prewar levels and peacetime engagement For this study they will only be referred in general terms
307The author developed the graph as an instructor at the Special Forces Detachment Officer Qualification course in September of 2003
143
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model
144
The unconventional warfare phases are the same as discussed above although
ldquotransitionrdquo has been substituted for demobilization For this study a non-doctrinalshy
phased foreign internal defense model was developed and used to allow the phases to be
mapped on the transition curve The nine phases used here start at the transition point
(signifying the establishment of an interim government or occupation decree) phase I-
gain control phase II-secure the environment phase III-humanitarian response phase
IV-training and employment phase V-reconstruction phase VI-sovereignty phase VII-
revitalization phase VIII-neutralization and phase IX-normalization308
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq
Now that the phases have been described the transition curve will be used to model
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq The Afghanistan model (see figure 6) only shows the
initial year to keep the focus on the transition phase and not what is happening today
Afghanistan is unusual since it began with such a small decisive force initially there
were only three Special Forces operational detachments-Alphas later building up to a
total of seventeen by December of 2001 with very few conventional forces engaged until
the transition point and the establishment of the interim government At the transition
point in mid-December 2001 larger US and coalition force build-up took place
However the only areas that were secure were the major cities Everywhere else was
called the ldquowild wild Westrdquo309 The continued lack of security had made it difficult for
any reconstruction effort outside the major cities forcing some nongovernmental
308The nine phases were developed from the authorrsquos combined experiences in Kosovo and Northern Iraq
309Captain T interview
145
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)
146
organizations to withdraw US military civil affairs teams and the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams have become more active in an effort to pacify many of the
unsecured areas310
The level of insecurity has been steadily increasing over time This security
problem can also be tied to the efforts of US military In most cases Special Forces have
not changed their mission since the war began to stay on the offensive against remnants
of the Taliban and Al Qarsquoida Special Forces at this point should simply focus on
establishing a secure environment by taking an active role in training indigenous police
and military forces and acting as advisors to these units as they deploy in the outlying
areas This in turn will make the population feel more comfortable about providing
human intelligence which can then be acted on to neutralize the insurgent remnants
For Iraq (see figure 7) it is obvious that the country is not secure and is potentially getting
less secure as the insurgents continue to disrupt the stability and reconstruction efforts
This difficulty began with the uncontrolled looting at first and now the US is playing
catch-up to the insurgents It was not until the insurgency had become organized that the
coalition began trying to disrupt it instead of disrupting it before it ever had a chance to
get started
The other interesting aspect of this graph is with respect to force numbers
Immediately after the conflict it may have taken 130000 coalition troops to secure the
most difficult areas in and around the ldquoSunni Trianglerdquo However over the first several
months the insurgency began to grow in strength at the same time the conventional army
310Dobbins 140-141
147
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom)
148
was forced to take on multiple roles such as training and advising economic
reconstruction and local governance All of these secondary tasks meant that there were
few forces to establish security Add to this the collapse of the Iraqi police and the
disbandment of the Iraqi Army as well as the US attrition based counterinsurgency
efforts the insurgency grew exponentially during the first two years Now with current
coalition and Iraqi troop levels the security situation is still unfavorable yet there are
nearly twice as many troops with a total of 211700 Iraqi security forces trained and
equipped311 The graph also shows that the US conventional forces have to make up the
differences between the current indigenous force levels and what they need to be Until
this line grows to meet the US Force levels then the US will have to continue to commit
large numbers of ground troops
Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model
One question that arises from this analysis of the phases of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense is how do these phases and the transition point
correlate to the new joint operational phasing Figure 8 provided a visual example of the
joint phases and the corresponding phases of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
It is apparent upon further analysis that how these phases match up to the joint
phasing diagram depends if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or
the supporting effort It should also be noted that operational preparation of the
311Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report (Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005) slide 8
149
environment happens prior to the operational plan being approved by the President In
this sense operational preparation of the environment ends with the approval of the
operational plan and the first phase of unconventional warfare begins Once again this
highlights that operational preparation of the environment is a different mission set from
unconventional warfare and is applicable to any mission
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed
Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Note Numbering is authorrsquos
150
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense have a permanent place in
the future range of military operations doctrine The 2006 US Special Operations
Command posture statement highlights this fact stating ldquo[Special operations forcesrsquo] key
role in the long-term fight will be conducting [unconventional warfare] and [foreign
internal defense] to build foreign capabilities that deny terrorist organizations the ability
to sustain their effortsrdquo312 However in the same posture statement they define
unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo313 What are not clear are the differences in indigenous forces and
host nation forces nor does this definition of unconventional warfare provide the purpose
of working with by and through The idea that unconventional warfare is working by
with and through other forces indigenous or surrogates is not a new concept or point of
confusion found only in the US Special Operations Command posture statement The
Special Forces definition of unconventional warfare found in FM 3-0520 is the same as
defined in JP 1-02 except that through with and by are added ldquo[Unconventional
Warfare] is a broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations predominantly
conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo314
312United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 6 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
313Ibid
314FM 3-0520 2-1
151
One of the difficulties applying unconventional warfare as an overarching term to
the war on terror is the context of the doctrine which shows that unconventional warfare
is used to support armed indigenous forces aimed at overthrowing the government of a
nation-state and therefore does not apply against the than it cannot be used against a non-
state actor Other than Afghanistan al Qarsquoida has not yet successfully occupied any other
foreign nations Operations using indigenous or surrogate forces that are not aimed at the
overthrow of a government would more precisely be called foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism or counter-proliferation All of
these operations can doctrinally be conducted with surrogate forces but are not
unconventional warfare
This subtlety is another important aspect of why words matter An example of this
is the CIArsquos training of an Afghan unit to capture Usama bin Laden in 1998--a classic
example of counterterrorism not unconventional warfare as some would stipulate315
Another example of this concept comes from World War II when Aaron Bank was given
a mission to ldquoraise a company strength unit of German defectors military and civilian
conduct subversion sabotage and guerrilla actions and above all capture high-ranking
Nazisrdquo in what was believed to be their last holdout areas in the Austrian Alps316 Merely
by the subversion sabotage and guerrilla warfare aspects of this mission it would seem
to be a form of unconventional warfare however due to the short duration and limited
315ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo CBS News (15 September 2004) available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet accessed on 24 April 2006
316Bank 72-74
152
objectives of the mission of harassment versus overthrow it better qualifies it as a direct
action mission
In determining the future usefulness of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense three threat models have to be addressed those within the borders of a
state those that transnational or non-state actors and those in the amorphous
ldquoungoverned spaces or failed nations
In the first case threats within the border of a nation unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense will always have important roles The possible nation state
threats are hostile nations (Iraq) rogue nations (North Korea) states that sponsor
terrorism and insurgency (Iran and Syria) and states that are seized or controlled by al
Qarsquoida most likely within the caliphate boundary are exactly what unconventional
warfare was developed for--to overthrow regimes by supporting insurgency
As the previous example and the historical analysis demonstrate the future
foreign internal defense possibilities and applications are endless As has been witnessed
foreign internal defense can be used across the spectrum of conflict--from peacetime to
high-intensity postconflict environments--where a government friendly or passive to the
US needs help to effectively combat growing or potential insurgency subversion or
lawlessness Thus foreign internal defense is likely to be the primary mission due to the
number of friendly countries that face insurgency while unconventional warfare will be
reserved for the cases where there is a hostile rogue failed or terrorist-sponsoring
country
The second case is against non-state actors or transnational threats that threaten
regions or seek to upset the global balance and are not bound by borders The problem
153
with applying unconventional warfare against a non-state actor that is not in control of a
nation is that unconventional warfare was designed for use against a hostile government
or occupying power within a state Al Qarsquoida is neither a state nor an occupier as of yet
although the Taliban-led and al Qarsquoida supported Afghanistan could be the closest model
Al Qarsquoida and its associated movements are better classified as a global insurgency All
three of these elements eliminate unconventional warfare as the correct overall operation
term to be used to counter al Qarsquoida or other non-state actors The ldquoglobalrdquo aspect of this
insurgency also does not support the use of foreign internal defense as an overarching
term either since the problem is bigger than a single nation yet it is related to the defense
of the current global systems or global status quo In these cases there will be some
countries that are threatened by insurgencies supported by non-state actors such as the
insurgencies in Iraq and the Philippines in which case foreign internal defense will the
operation that has to be conducted to defeat these elements In the case of a hostile
regime that either supports a non-state actor is a puppet of the non-state actor or in fact
has been taken over by the non-state actor than unconventional warfare will be used to
overthrow these unfriendly regimes
The final threat model is that of the failed nation or ungoverned spaces Failed
states are best described as states that have no or minimally functioning governments
The Taliban run Afghanistan without its al Qarsquoida influences provides a good example
of a failed nation Even in failed states a State and a Counter-State can be identified In
the case of a hostile State unconventional warfare could be used by supporting the
Counter-State The Taliban State and the Northern Alliance Counter-State in Afghanistan
prior to 11 September may provide a good example of this relationship In the case of a
154
failed nation but with a friendly State foreign internal defense could be conducted to
strengthen the legitimacy and capability of the friendly State in hopes of developing a
functioning government
These failed states and the above premises on the State and Counter-State could
also easily be described as ungoverned spaces as well but in the context of this analysis
ungoverned spaces are areas where there is no effective government control even though
these areas are within the borders of a sovereign nation This area may also extend across
the border into neighboring countries as well such as the tri-border region in South
American where Brazil Paraguay and Argentina intersect and there is no effective
government control which enables criminal activity to thrive In these cases the solution
is to conduct foreign internal defense to help the government regain control of the
ungoverned spaces as the US tried during the White Star program in eastern Laos during
the Vietnam War Another solution when there is no viable government to support in
these efforts is to use a United Nations sanctioned operation or another international
coalition effort such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to move in and provide
security and build a government The US could do this unilaterally but based on the
current operations and domestic support it is unlikely that the US commit to such a
mission This mission would be the far end of the foreign internal defense scale and
would resemble the US efforts in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and no effective
government system operating
The discussion on Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense roles in the future is further complicated by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense
Review which uses the undefined term ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo to
155
describe the campaign against al Qarsquoida and its associated movements Global
unconventional warfare defined within the complete doctrinal context of unconventional
warfare means ldquosupport to global insurgencyrdquo Certainly this was not the intention of
calling it unconventional warfare but it does bring up a larger debate about the missions
that Special Forces will be conducting One problem is the misunderstanding of the
definition and doctrine of unconventional warfare and the other problem is that there is a
sense that anything that is not conventional must be unconventional with little thought
going into the meaning of the words Although well-intentioned at some point the use of
this terminology will likely have some semblance to the failed attempts in the summer of
2005 to change the global war on terror to global struggle against violent extremism or
war on extremism because the global war on terror did not correctly describe the war In
the same way ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo has some political baggage based on the
missing doctrinal context of unconventional warfare definition
This leads to the final question ldquowhat is the role of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense in the context of the Global War on Terrorrdquo Regardless of how
ldquotransnationalrdquo these movements are the sovereignty of the nation-states is still going to
constrain US and coalition operations Because of this there are really three situations
that unconventional warfare will be used for
1 Operations against Rogue Hostile Regimes or State Sponsors of Terrorism--a
proven operational concept having been used successfully twice since 11 September in
Afghanistan and Iraq These operations will either be the decisive or shaping operation
depending on the political sensitivity of the target country
156
2 Operations against what will be referred to in this study as al Qarsquoida states (AQ
States) in which al Qarsquoida is able to overthrow one or more of the regimes within the
boundary of the 7th century caliphate Unconventional warfare would be used to
overthrow these regimes
3 Operations in failed states when there is no effective government but an
element within the population such as a tribe or ethnic group is the State for all intents
and purposes In this case unconventional warfare will be used to overthrow this State
In each one of these cases as soon as the unconventional warfare or conventional
operations have been successful then they will shift to foreign internal defense in the
same way Afghanistan and Iraq transitioned to foreign internal defense Therefore
regardless of the operation the end state will likely include foreign internal defense
conducted once a friendly government is established
For this very reason foreign internal defense will continue to play a significant
role in US engagement strategies In a flashback to the past foreign internal defense will
be conducted for three reasons as well
1 Primarily to protect friendly states threatened by insurgency especially al
Qarsquoida sponsored insurgency such as the Sunni insurgency in Iraq supported by al
Qarsquoida affiliated Abu Musab Zarqawi or state-sponsored insurgency such as the Shirsquoa
insurgency supported by Iran
2 Foreign internal defense during peacetime engagement under the Theater
Security Cooperation Plan or during postconflict mission after the transition from
unconventional warfare and or conventional operations
157
3 To gain control of ungoverned spaces by supporting a weak government or
some portion of the population that is in these areas and will support US and coalition
efforts such as the Hmong tribesmen in Laos to regain control of these areas In extreme
cases international intervention could be used such as United Nations or other
internationally recognized coalitions or alliances to gain control establish a secure
environment and establish a government able to gain and maintain control
Therefore unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense will be the
primary missions of Special Forces in the future Figure 9 provides the actual framework
for Special Forces role within the Global War on Terror The figure shows clearly the
types of operations that will be conducted depending on the situation Analysis of the US
Special Operations Command threat model and the types of operations required for each
threats pictured in figure 10 also supports the above conclusions
Finally figure 9 also shows the relationship between operational preparation of
the environment and other missions Operational preparation of the environment is not
unconventional warfare but applies to every Special Forces missions Figure 9 shows
operational preparation of the environment as the precursor to different types of
operations Because this mission has its own tasks associated with it this may be the
operation that emerges as a new operational concept Another concept shown on the map
is counterinfrastructure instead of counterterrorism to signify that this mission can be
carried out against a regimersquos infrastructure or the infrastructure of an insurgent group
This would also be a more proactive mission versus the current counterterrorism
operations and could easily use ldquosurrogatesrdquo or indigenous forces to conduct these
operations yet would not be unconventional warfare
158
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort
159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model Source United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 4 available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedu les3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006 Note Missions and arrows were added by the author and are not found in any US Special Operations Command publication
Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency
For those that argue that unconventional warfare can be used to defea t an
insurgency David Galula provides some interesting insights First he explains wh y
insurgent warfare does not work for the counterinsurgent
Insurgency warfare is specifically designed to allow the camp afflicted with congenital weakness to acquire strength progressively while fighting The counterinsurgent is endowed with congenital strength for him to adopt the insurgentrsquos warfare would be the same as for a giant to try to fit into dwarfrsquos clothing317
317David Galula Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice (St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005) 73
160
David Galula also explains that if the counterinsurgent could operate as a guerrilla he
would have to have the support of the population which in turn means that the actual
insurgents do not have the support Therefore if the insurgent did not have the support of
the populous in the first place then there would be no need for the counterinsurgent to
operate in these areas However he does not discount the use of commando-style
operations in limited forms As he notes ldquoThey cannot however represent the main form
of the counterinsurgentrsquos warfarerdquo318
Another applicable comment from David Galula has to do with the possibility for
the counterinsurgent ldquoto organize a clandestine force able to defeat the insurgent on his
own termsrdquo the essence of the Global Unconventional Warfare concept As David Galula
explains
Clandestinity [sic] seems to be another of those obligations-turned-into-assets of the insurgent How could the counterinsurgent whose strength derives precisely from his open physical assets build up a clandestine force except as minor and secondary adjunct Furthermore room for clandestine organizations is very limited in revolutionary war Experience shows that no rival--not to speak of hostile--clandestine movements can coexist for long319
Summary
This chapter answered the secondary questions showing that unconventional
warfare is the support to insurgency while foreign internal defense is the support given to
a government to help that government defeat subversion lawlessness and insurgency
The description and subsequent models of the transition from unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense help to clarify the relationship between these two operations The
318Ibid
319Ibid
161
final question on the role of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
respect to non-state actor determined that they are applicable as individual operations
depending on the enemy threat in each country but that global unconventional warfare is
a misnomer This chapter sets the stage to answer the primary question in chapter 5
162
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This study set out to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as currently defined are still applicable to contemporary and future Special
Forces operations Without a doubt the most confusing aspect of this fifty-year old
debate is the definition of unconventional warfare
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion320
Although some would argue that the broad statement provides leeway in its
application what has actually happened is that in providing leeway Special Forces have
historically misunderstood the most basic element of the definition--support to
insurgency Much of the blame for this confusion is evident in the historical analysis
presented in chapter 3--Special Forces leaders were trying to provide a niche mission that
would assure Special Forcesrsquo relevance throughout the turbulent periods after Vietnam
and with the end of the Cold War
However the attempts to make unconventional warfare an overarching term and
the birth of the idea that unconventional warfare is any operation conducted by with and
through an indigenous force has had a grave impact on the forcesrsquo understanding of
unconventional warfare With the rise of the non-state actor there is new emphasis to
320JP 1-02
163
adapt unconventional warfare to this new threat regardless if it is the correct mission or
not The bottom line with respect to the current definition of unconventional warfare is
that taken in the context of unconventional warfare history and current doctrine it is
applicable to todayrsquos contemporary environment as evidenced by operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq but by itself could be and is inadvertently applied to missions it
was never intended As the analysis shows in chapter 4 unconventional warfare has a
significant place in future Special Forcesrsquo operations when regime removal is necessary
as in the cases of rogue or hostile regimes (Saddam Husseinrsquos regime) regimes that
support terrorist or global insurgent organization (Taliban) and finally if al Qarsquoida
successfully seizes power in a country within the caliphate In each of these cases
unconventional warfare will be a weapon of choice as either the decisive operation or as a
shaping operation for other elements of national power
As for foreign internal defense the definition is clear and based on the analysis of
the history of foreign internal defense it will without a doubt continue to be applicable
to future Special Forcesrsquo operations This is especially true in operations to overthrow
regimes through conventional operations and or unconventional warfare operations
which will rollover to foreign internal defense The clarity of the definition leaves little
room for misunderstanding ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a
government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo321 The foreign internal
defense definition provides one significant aspect that the unconventional warfare
definition does not--it provides the conditions that are to be met by the operations ldquoto free
321Ibid
164
and protect a society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo which leaves little
doubt of the purpose of these operations from peacetime engagement to high-intensity
and high-threat environments like Vietnam and Iraq The foreign internal defense
doctrine defines three types of support--indirect direct and combat--which provides
further clarity In todayrsquos environment and the future the key to success against the
global insurgency will be through foreign internal defense to enable US partner nations to
do exactly what the definition says protect themselves from ldquosubversion lawlessness and
insurgencyrdquo all three ingredients necessary to deny al Qarsquoida and its associated
movement sanctuary support freedom of movement and access to weapons of mass
destruction
Special Forces is the only branch specifically trained and ready to conduct these
operations Although the conventional military is doing its best to develop military
training teams they will never have the training experience and cultural awareness in
these types of operations that Special Forces bring to the table Special Forces is standing
in the door of a new paradigm shift The branch will either stay its current course
continually looking for relevancy or it can seize the opportunity and take its place as a
decisive or shaping force able to conduct unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as a key economy of force component of the Joint Forces range of military
operations
Recommendations
First unconventional warfare should be defined as operations by a state or non-
state actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or an
165
occupying power in another country322 In this definition insurgency would an inclusive
term for resistance or partisan operations as well Like foreign internal defense there
would be three types of support or operational approach indirect direct and combat the
application of which would depend on the political and security environments323 This
would make the definition of unconventional warfare as clear as the current definition of
foreign internal defense and would finally end the confusion by providing a purpose
Also like the foreign internal defense definition the new unconventional warfare
definition would be universal In other words external support could be provided by Iran
Syria China Cuba North Korea and even Al Qarsquoida
With regards to the three types of support or operational approach as used
throughout this study each would be used depending on the environment whether hostile
or denied Indirect support would be used when the environment is denied The indirect
approach would focus on the insurgencyrsquos self-sufficiency by indirectly providing lethal
and nonlethal aid money and training through a third party or in the case of training in
a third party country or in the US as was done with the Tibetans Direct support would
include all aspects of support but would put Special Forces in sanctuary or liberated
areas within the vicinity of the conflict but not in direct contact with the hostile
governmentrsquos forces as was the case with the Contras However during this type of
322Jones Although part of the recommended definition in the above mentioned article upon further research the author has dropped ldquoconstitutedrdquo from the definition since there are fewer ldquoconstitutedrdquo or even governments as historically defined in the likely hotspots of today Instead more and more governments are like the Taliban--not a government in the true sense of the word but strong enough to seize and maintain power as the ldquostaterdquo versus some minority or weaker element the ldquocounter-staterdquo such as the Northern Alliance
323Grdovic
166
support there could be risk to Special Forces personnel if the hostile government
launched punitive strikes or raids into these areas to disrupt or destroy the insurgents
Finally if the operational approach is combat support than Special Forces would conduct
all of the supporting tasks mentioned above and would participate in combat operations
as advisors to the insurgency and coordinate other US assets such as close air support
Second the post-11 September unconventional warfare operations also validated
the seven-phase concept of US sponsored insurgency However the final phase
demobilization would be better served if called transition Thus Special Forces would
begin to shape the postconflict environment as combat operations ended to ensure success
in the stability phase by identifying potential threats providing security and transitioning
the insurgents into local militia units that would disrupt any attempts by former regime
elements to establish an insurgent infrastructure The unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense transition point should also be captured within unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine
Third ensure a broader understanding of unconventional warfare throughout the
military and interagency by describing unconventional warfare in detail in core joint and
service doctrinal manuals Currently for example unconventional warfare is not
mentioned in the 3-0 family of capstone Joint publications or the Armyrsquos field manual on
operational doctrine Instead support to insurgency with no reference to unconventional
warfare is described in single paragraph under stability operations The success of
unconventional warfare in Afghanistan demonstrated that SOF can perform economy of
force operations by supporting insurgencies the Northern Alliance in this case and that
these combined forces can conduct decisive offensive operations SOFrsquos unconventional
167
warfare efforts in Northern Iraq advising the Kurds also validated the concept of using
insurgents to conduct shaping operations in support of conventional forces
Fourth the Global Unconventional Warfare campaign needs to be dropped in
favor of a better term that captures the counterinsurgency nature of this war possibly
global counterinsurgency counter global insurgency global internal defense or global
counter irregular warfare To do this the problem global insurgency must first be
defined A recommended definition is operations by one or more networked non-state
entities with the goal of overthrowing or dramatically changing the global status quo or
disrupting globalization The possible definition for the counter to this would be similar
to the foreign internal defense definition but on a grand-strategy scale
A broad range of direct and indirect interagency coalition special operations and conventional military efforts to defeat global insurgency subversion and lawlessness by denying sanctuary freedom of movement external support mechanisms mass popular support access to weapons of mass destruction psychological and propaganda effects operational intelligence and armed offensive capabilities
Under this definition a single overarching term may not be needed but it would be the
combined ldquoeffectsrdquo of operations across the globe For Special Forces this would include
unconventional warfare foreign internal defense operational preparation of the
battlefield direct action counterterrorism counterproliferation special reconnaissance
and a new term counterinfrastructure Counterinfrastructure would entail destroying
defeating disrupting or capturing hostile regime non-state actor or insurgent
infrastructure This is a more proactive type of operation than counterterrorism which is
generally reactive in nature This operational term describes the current global
interdiction of al Qarsquoida and associated movements as well as the operation taken to
168
capture former regime elements and insurgent leaders in Iraq This operation would also
include the use of surrogates
Fifth operational preparation of the environment needs to be added to the core
special operations forces core mission or more correctly operations This operation is
not unconventional warfare but an operation in and of itself that can set the conditions
for the execution of the other core tasks By making it a stand-alone mission specific
doctrine could be published for operational preparation of the environment instead of
capturing this doctrine in other core mission doctrine which adds to the confusion
Sixth if unconventional warfare becomes an overarching term for operations by
with and through indigenous or surrogate forces then the confusion over unconventional
warfare will continue A possible solution would be to define each of the Special Forces
missions separately under this umbrella term The above recommended unconventional
warfare definition would instead be used to define a new term such as support to
insurgency or STI The big three ldquoby with and throughrdquo missions would be support to
insurgency operational preparation of the environment and foreign internal defense
However the other operational terms counter-proliferation counterterrorism counter-
infrastructure direct action and special reconnaissance could also be conducted by
through and with indigenous and surrogate forces and use the same three operational
approaches as outlined for unconventional warfare When used this way they could also
fall under this overarching unconventional warfare term324
324Jones On further analysis of this problem this is a better solution than the one outlined in the Why Words Matter paper which suggested support to insurgency and operations against non-state actors would fall under this overarching term Based on the US Special Operations Command 2006 posture statement the use of surrogates and
169
Seventh this study has also highlighted a deficiency in the joint doctrinersquos
definition of insurgency The current joint definition for insurgency does not address
resistance or partisan operations against an occupier reading ldquoan organized movement
aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo325 Instead of this definition a new recommended definition for insurgency is
ldquoan organized movement or resistance aimed at the overthrow of a constituted
government or removal of an occupying power through the use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo
Finally one of the byproducts of this study was the identification of a trend which
tries to leverage ldquounconventional warfare skillsrdquo to separate Special Forces from the rest
of the special operations community326 To some these are the skills that make up the
warrior-diplomat capability of Special Forces However Special Forces soldiers use these
same skills regardless of the mission and this is what sets Special Forces apart If Special
Forces are truly ldquospecialrdquo compared to the rest of the special operations community it is
because of the nature of their training and mindset that have not been readily transferable
to other special operation forces Therefore these unconventional warfare skills are
actually Special Forces skills and should be captured in this manner to not only leverage
indigenous forces during other types of operations must be clarified based on the noted fact that direct action and counterterrorism were not listed as one of the operational missions of Special Operation Forces having been rolled up under unconventional warfare
325JP 3-0 V-13
326Rothstein 102
170
their uniqueness but also to reduce the confusion between unconventional warfare the
operation and a set of skills
Areas for Further Research
During the research of this project numerous other areas of research came to light
that warrant further study
First was the Special Forces direct action and intelligence collection focus the
most efficient use of these high-demand and low-density assets or could they have been
employed as trainers and advisors to produce a larger positive effect on the growth and
success of the Iraqi and Afghani security forces while simultaneously reducing the
insurgency
Second would a large-scale employment of Special Forces detachments be a
better long-term choice for training and advising than the conventional military training
team concept This is based on the premise that US domestic support for the prolonged
operations in Iraq is a direct reflection of continued conventional force deployments
Therefore these deployments could be shortened by using Special Forces to conduct
economy of force operations and allowing the conventional military to withdraw
Third conduct a detailed study of counterinfrastructure operations This would
include not only unilateral US efforts but host-nation partner and surrogate operations
and operations using former elements that have been ldquoturnedrdquo in what are called ldquopseudoshy
operationsrdquo
Last could a Special Forces deployable task force and the related command and
control structure and training capacity be able to develop a host nation military and
internal security forces and systems filling the role of the Multi-National Security 171
Transition Command ndashIraq This idea comes from the doctrinal based premise that an
operational detachment alpha can train equip and employ an indigenous battalion
Therefore based on a logical progression of capabilities a Special Forces company also
known as an operational detachment bravo should be able to train and advise an
indigenous brigade a Special Forces battalion an operational detachment charlie should
be capable of training and advising an indigenous division a Special Forces Group then
would be able to train and advise an indigenous Corps and a deployable Special Forces
task force headquarters such as a Joint Forces Special Operations Component
commander of appropriate general officer rank and his staff would be able to train and
advise an indigenous Army This final level would be capable and prepared to do exactly
what the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq has done but instead of
being an ad hoc organization it would be an inherent Special Forces capability and
responsibility
172
GLOSSARY
Antiterrorism Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and propert to terrorist acts to include limited response and containment by local military forces Also called AT (JP 1-02)
Biometrics The measuring of physical human features to ensure that a person once registered can be identified later even if his or her identity documents or facial characteristics change(US Army Battle Command Battle Lab) Campaign Plan A plan for a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space (JP 1-02)
Civil Administration An administration established by a foreign government in (1) friendly territory under an agreement with the government of the area concerned to exercise certain authority normally the function of the local government or (2) hostile territory occupied by United States forces where a foreign government exercises executive legislative and judicial authority until an indigenous civil government can be established Also called CA administration (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Designated Active and Reserve component forces and units organized trained and equipped specifically to conduct civil affairs activities and to support civil-military operations Also called CA (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Activities Activities performed or supported by civil affairs that (1) enhance the relationship between military forces and civil authorities in areas where military forces are present and (2) involve application of civil affairs functional specialty skills in areas normally the responsibility
Civil-Military Operations The activities of a commander that establish maintain influence or exploit relations between military forces governmental and nongovernmental civilian organizations and authorities and the civilian populace in a friendly neutral or hostile operational area in order to facilitate military operations to consolidate and achieve operational US objectives Civil-military operations may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of the local regional or national government These activities may occur prior to during or subsequent to other military actions They may also occur if directed in the absence of other military operations Civil military operations may be performed by designated civil affairs by other military forces or by a combination of civil affairs and other forces Also called CMO (JP 1-02)
Combatant Command A unified or specified command with a broad continuing mission under a single commander established and so designated by the President through the Secretary of Defense and with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of
173
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Combatant commands typically have geographic or functional responsibilities (JP 1-02)
Combatant Commander A commander of one of the unified or specified combatant commands established by the President (JP 1-02)
Combatting Terrorism Actions including antiterrorism (defensive measures taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist acts) and counterterrorism (offensive measures taken to prevent deter and respond to terrorism) taken to oppose terrorism throughout the entire threat spectrum Also called CBT (JP 1-02)
Conventional Forces (1) Those forces capable of conducting operations using nonnuclearweapons (2) Those forces other than designated special operations forces (JP 1-02)
Counterdrug Those active measures taken to detect monitor and counter the productiontrafficking and use of illegal drugs Also called CD (JP 1-02)
Counterinsurgency Those military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency Also called COIN (FM 1-02 1-47)
Counterintelligence Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage other intelligence activities sabotage or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof foreign organizations or foreign persons or international terrorists activities Also called CI (JP 1-02)
Counterterrorism Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent deter preempt and respond to terrorism Also called CT (JP 1-02)
Country Team The senior in-country US coordinating and supervising body headed by the chief of the US diplomatic mission and composed of the senior member of each represented US department or agency as desired by the chief of the US diplomatic mission (JP 1-02)
Direct Action Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions by special operations forces or special operations-capable units to seize destroy capture recover or inflict damage on designated personnel or material (FM 1-02 1-60)
Foreign Internal Defense Participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency Also called FID (JP 1-02)
Host Nation A nation that receives the forces andor supplies of allied nations coalition partners andor NATO organizations
174
Hostile Environment Operational environment in which hostile forces have control as well as the intent and capability to effectively oppose or react to the operations a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Indigenous Native originating in or intrinsic to an area or region (FM 3-0520)
Insurgency An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Interagency Coordination Within the context of Department of Defense involvement the coordination that occurs between elements of Department of Defense andengaged US Government agencies nongovernmental organizations and regional and international organizations for the purpose of accomplishing an objective (JP 1-02)
Internal Defense And Development The full range of measures taken by a nation to promote its growth and to protect itself from subversion lawlessness and insurgency It focuses on building viable institutions (political economic social and military) that respond to the needs of society Also called IDAD (JP 1-02)
Joint Task Force A joint force that is constituted and so designated by the Secretary of Defense a combatant commander a subordinate unified command commander or an existing joint task force commander Also called JTF (JP 1-02)
Military Assistance Advisory Group A joint Service group normally under the military command of a commander of a unified command and representing the Secretary of Defense which primarily administers the US military assistance
Military Civic Action The use of preponderantly indigenous military forces on projects useful to the local population at all levels in such fields as education training public works agriculture transportation communications health sanitation and others contributing to economic and social development which would also serve to improve the standing of the military forces with the population (US forces may at times advise or engage in military civic actions in overseas areas) (JP 1-02)
Military Support to Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Department of Defense activities that support US Government plans for stabilization security reconstruction and transition operations which lead to sustainable peace while advancing US interests (DoDD 300005)
Paramilitary Forces Forces or groups distinct from the regular armed forces of any country but resembling them in organization equipment training or mission (JP 1-02)
Permissive Environment Operational environment in which host country military and law enforcement agencies have control as well as the intent and capability to
175
assist operations that a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Special Operations Operations conducted by specially organized trained and equipped military and paramilitary forces to achieve military political economic or informational objectives by unconventional military means in hostile denied or politically sensitive areas (FM 1-02 1-173)
Special Operations Forces Those Active and Reserve Component forces of the Military Services designated by the Secretary of Defense and specifically organized trained and equipped to conduct and support special operations Also called SOF (JP 1-02)
Special Reconnaissance Reconnaissance and surveillance actions conducted by special operations forces to obtain or verify by visual observation or other collection methods information concerning the capabilities intentions and activities of an actual or potential enemy or to secure data concerning the meteorological hydrographic or geographic characteristics of a particular area (FM 1-02 1-174)
Stability Operations Operations that promote and protect US national interests by influencing the threat political and information dimensions of the operational environment through a combination of peacetime development cooperative activities and coercive actions in response to a crisis (FM 1-02 1-175)
Stability Operations Military and civilian activities conducted across the spectrum from peace to conflict to establish or maintain order in States and regions (DoDD 300005)
Subversion Action designed to undermine the military economic psychological or political strength or morale of a regime See also unconventional warfare (JP 1shy02)
Support to Counterinsurgency Support provided to a government in the military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions it undertakes to defeat insurgency (JP 1-02)
Support to Insurgency Support provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Surrogate someone who takes the place of or acts for another a substitute (FM 3-0520)
Terrorism The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political religious or ideological (JP 1-02)
176
Transition Point Authorrsquos definition for the point of phase shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense operations or conventionally a shift from conflict to postconflict
Uncertain Environment Operational environment in which host government forces whether opposed to or receptive to operations that a unit intends to conduct do not have totally effective control of the territory and population in the intended operational area (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Unconventional Warfare A broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes but is not limited to guerrilla warfare subversion sabotage intelligence activities and unconventional assisted recovery Also called UW (JP 1-02)
177
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams Thomas K Military Doctrine and the Organization Culture of the United States Army Ann Arbor University Microfilms 1990
________ US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998
Ancker III Clinton J Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing Fort Leavenworth KS Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005
Ancker III Clinton J and Michael D Burke ldquoDoctrine for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Military Review (July-August 2003) Available from httpwwwfindarticles comparticles mi_m0PBZis_4_83ai_109268858 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004)
Andrade Dale and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
Asprey Robert B War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994
Ayers Cynthia E ldquoIraqi Resistance to Freeedom A Frommian Perspectiverdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 68-84
Baer Robert See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001
Bailey Cecil E ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
Bank Aaron USA Colonel Retired From OSS to Green Berets New York Pocket Books 1986
Barker Geoffrey T A Concise History of US Army Special Operations Forces Fayetteville NC Anglo-American Publishing Company 1988
Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet Accessed on 3 May 2006
Bernhard Michael ldquoThe Lessons of a Successful Military Occupationrdquo Strategic Insight (May 2003)
Biddle Stephen ldquoSpecial Forces and the Future of Warfare Will SOF Predominate in 2020rdquo US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute 2004
178
Book Elizabeth ldquoRole of Special Ops Evolves Over Timerdquo National Defense Magazine February 2002 Available from httpwwwnationaldefensemagazineorgarticle cfmId=719 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004
Boyatt Mark D Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
Boykin William G ldquoVigilant Warrior 2002 War Game Demonstrates ARSOFrsquos Value to the Objective Forcerdquo Special Warfare (September 2001) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442223 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
________ Major General ldquoFrom the Commandantrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 1
Briscoe C H Dr ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
Brook Robin Sir ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992
Brown Frederic J Lieutenant General Retired ldquoAmericarsquos Army Expeditionary and Enduring-Foreign and Domesticrdquo Military Review (November-December 2003) Available from httpwwwarmymilprof_writingvolumesvolume2february_ 20042_04_4_pfhtml Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Cassidy Robert M Major ldquo41 (sic) Why Great Powers Fight Small Wars Badlyrdquo Military Review (September-October 2002 English Edition) Available from httpwwwcgscarmymilmilrevenglishSepOct02cassidyasp Internet Accessed on 31 October 2003
Cavallora Gina ldquoIraqis get the basics Drill sergeants deploy to the war zonerdquo The Army Times (June 2004) 22
CBS News ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo 15 September 2004 Available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet Accessed on 24 April 2006
Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd
Charters David and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984
179
Chiarelli Peter W Major General and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
Cline Lawrence E ldquoThe New Constabularies Planning US Military Stabilization Missionsrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 14 no 3 (Autumn 2003) 158-184
Coffey Ross Major ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
Collins John M ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 22-27
Corum James S and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003
Cox Matthew ldquorsquoThey are so undisciplinedrsquo Iraqi forces learn ropes of battle but curve is steeprdquo The Army Times 27 (September 2004) 8
Crawley Vince and Nicole Gaudiano ldquoAbu Ghraib Investigator 4th Star lsquoUnlikelyrsquo For Sanchez-CIA lsquoGhost Detaineesrsquo Raise Lawmakersrsquo Irerdquo The Army Times 20 (September 2004) 12
Crerar J H Colonel Retired US Army ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37-39
Daugherty William J Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004
Defend America News ldquoIraq Time Linerdquo Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milIraqTimeLinehtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Department of Defense 2003-2004 SOF Posture Statement Special OperationsLow-Intensity Conflict Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpolicysolic 2003_2004_SOF_Posture_Statementpdf Internet Accessed on 10 April 2004
________ Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005 Available from httpwwwdticmil futurejointwarfareconceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet Accessed on 17 February 2006
________ Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 300005 Military Support for Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations Washington DC GPO 2005
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2004 A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Available from httpwwwoftosdmil
180
librarylibrary_filesdocument_377_National20Military20Strategy201320 May2004pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
________ Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet Accessed on 8 February 2006
________ Stability Operations Joint Operating Concept September 2004 Available from httpwwwdticmiljointvisionfinalstab_jocdoc Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004)
Department of the Army and the Department of the US Air Force Field Manual 100shy20Air Force Pamphlet 3-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflicts Washington DC GPO 1990
Department of the Army Field Manual 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations Forces Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 100-5 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0520 (FM 31-20) Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 3-07 (FM 100-20) Stability Operations and Support Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 20 April 1990
________ Field Manual 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques Washington DC GPO 1971
________ Field Manual 31-20-3 Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces Washington DC GPO 1989
________ Field Manual 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 1961
________ Field Manual 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla Warfare Washington DC GPO 1951
181
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1963
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1969
________ Field Manual 90-8 Counterguerrilla Operations Washington DC GPO 1986
________ The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower-Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section I Army Strategic Planning Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section II Army Planning Priorities Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
Department of the Navy Small Wars Draft January 2004 Available from httpwww smallwarsquanticousmcmilSWMSmall20Wars20Draft20Web202pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005
Devotie Michael W Sergeant First Class ldquoUnconventional Warfare A Viable Option for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1997) 30-32
Diamond Larry ldquoWhat Went Wrong in Iraqrdquo Foreign Affairs 83 no 5 (September October 2004) 34-56
Dickson Keith D Dr ldquoThe New Asymmetry Unconventional Warfare and Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Fall 2001) 14-19
Dobbins James ldquoAfghanistanrsquos Faltering Reconstructionrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2002 Available from httprandorgcommentary091202NYThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoNation-building The Inescapable Responsibility of the Worldrsquos Only Superpowerrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2003 Available from httprandorg publicationsrandreviewissuessummer2003nation1html Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoSecuring the Peace Will Require Finesserdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary062704CRhtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
182
Dobbins James John G McGinn Keith Crane Seth G Jones Rollie Lal Andrew Rathmell Rachel Swagner and Anga Timilsina Americarsquos Role in Nation-Building From Germany to Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND 2003
Donahoe Patrick J Lt Col ldquoPreparing Leaders for Nationbuildingrdquo Military Review (May-June 2004) 24-26
Fastabend David Brigadier General ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo PowerPoint presentation slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquoprepared for Joint Forces Command TRADOC 2004
Federal News Service ldquoBriefing on Coalition Post-war Reconstruction and Stabilization Effortsrdquo (transcript) Washington DC Federal News Service Inc 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmiltranscripts2003tr20030612shy0269html Internet Accessed on 4 October 2004
Field Kimberly C and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Fischer Joseph R ldquoCut from a Different Cloth The Origins of US Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (April 1995) 29-39
Fishel John T ldquoLittle Wars Small Wars LIC OOTW The GAP and Things That Go Bump in the Nightrdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 372-398
Flavin William ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 95-112 Available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Flournoy Michegravele Interagency Strategy and Planning for Post-Conflict Reconstruction Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) March 2002 Available from httpwwwcsis orgisppcrstrategypdf Internet Accessed on 10 October 2004
Foot M R D The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984
Franks Tommy General with Malcolm McConnell American Soldier General Tommy Franks Commander in Chief United States Central Command New York Harper-Collins Publishers Inc 2004
Frizzell Art ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgoverview html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Galula David Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005
183
Garamone Jim ldquoUS Army Trains Free Iraqi Forces in Hungaryrdquo American Forces Press Service 23 February 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnews Feb2003 n022420003_200302243html Internet Accessed on 24 September 2004
Gilmore Gerry J ldquoDespite Challenges Iraqi Forces lsquoIn the Fightrsquordquo DefenseLINK News 29 September 2004 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnewsSep 2004n09292004_2004092910html Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo Available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 Available from httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraray congress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2005
Godson Roy Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004
Grau Lester W Lt Col (ret) ldquoSomething Old Something New Guerrillas Terrorists and Intelligence Analysisrdquo Military Review (July-August 2004) 42-49
________ Multiple conversations on topic with the author September 2003 to October 2004 Fort Bragg NC
________ ldquoFOB 103 Operations in Northern Iraqrdquo Slide presentation Fort Bragg NC 28 August 2003
________ (Now Lieutenant Colonel) Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Grossman Elaine M ldquoAdvisers to Rumsfeld DOD Canrsquot Sustain Current Stability Operationsrdquo Inside The Pentagon Inside Washington Publishers 23 September 2004 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetgrossman advisers_to_rumsfeldhtm Internet Accessed on 9 October 2004
Halstead Brian D CW2 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Questions Concerns and Proposalsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 29-31
Hamblet John ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg chinahtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
184
Harclerode Peter Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden London Cassell and Company 2001
Harned Glenn M Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
Heckler Jeremy Sgt ldquoIraqis Denounce Barsquoath Party en masserdquo Iraqi Destiny 1 no 57 (January 2004) 2 5
Herd Walter Colonel ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service 13 June 2005 Available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Hoffman Bruce ldquoLessons from the Past for Iraqrsquos Futurerdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary072304SDUThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
Hoffman Bruce Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND National Security Research Division 2004
Hogan David W Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II Washington DC Department of the Army 1992
Holms Richard L ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 Available from httpwwwodci govcsistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet Accessed on 18 June 2005
Horton Lynn Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 Athens GA Ohio University 1998
Hughes Patrick M ldquoGlobal Threats and Challenges The Decades Ahead Prepared Statement before the Senate Armed Services Committeerdquo 2 February 1999 Washington DC Available from wwwdefenselinkmilspeeches1999 s19990202-hugheshtml Internet Accessed on 30 August 2003
Irvin Will Lt Col (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 New York NY PublicAffairs 2005
Ivosevic Michael J CW3 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Refining the Definitionrdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1999) 39
Jaffe Greg ldquoOn Ground in Iraq Capt Ayers Writes His Own Playbook Thrust Into New Kind of War Junior Officers Become Armyrsquos Leading Experts Risky Deal with Village Sheikrdquo Wall Street Journal 22 September 2004 1-6
Jalali Ali A ldquoRebuilding Afghanistanrsquos National Armyrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2002) 72-86
185
Joes Anthony James America and Guerrilla Warfare Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000
John F Kennedy Special Warfare Training Center Around the Campfire A Discussion The War on Terror Cody WY Government Publications January 2004
Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Washington DC GPO 2001 (as amended through 9 June 2004) Available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet Accessed on 16 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination Washington DC GPO 23 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 10 September 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Doctrine for Joint Special Operations Washington GPO 2003
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD Washington DC GPO 12 April 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism Washington DC GPO 1 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs 2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet Accessed on 6 February 2006
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategy Chapter 2 The Strategic Environment-shyOpportunities and Challenges Available from wwwdticmiljcsnmsstrategihtm Internet Accessed on 3 October 2004
Joint Special Operations Insights Issues and Lessons (SIPRNET) Norfolk VA (classified website used only for reference ndash no classified information released)
Jones D Major ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo 5 February 2005 Scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
Jones Frank L ldquoArmy SOF in Afghanistan Learning the Right Lessonsrdquo Joint Force Quarterly (Winter 2002-03) 16-22
186
Jones Gary M Colonel and Major Christopher Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 4-15
Kaplan Robert D Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground New York NY Random House 2005
Kem Jack D Dr Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd
Kershner Michael R Colonel ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84-86
________ ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 2-7
Kiper Richard L Dr ldquoAn Army For Afghanistan The 1st Battalion 3rd SF Group and the Afghan Armyrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) 42-43
Kruger Kimbra L ldquoUS Military Intervention in Third World Conflict The Need for Integration of Total War and LIC Doctrinerdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 399-428
Lambert Geoffrey C Major General ldquoMajor Combat and Restoration Operations A Discussionrdquo Special Warfare (February 2004) 2-5
________ ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20-27
Language Technology Office DCD ldquoBiometrics Automated Toolset (BAT)rdquo (Briefing Slides) US Army Battle Command Battle Lab Huachuca March 2004
Lauber Mark LTC Retired Multiple discussions with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
Leever Gretha Municipal Affairs Officer United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo Multiple conversations with the author on the UNrsquos capacity to conduct postconflict operations Kosovo November 2001 to January 2002
Lewis S J Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991
Lindsay Franklin A Basic Doctrine for the Conduct of Unconventional Warfare McKinsey and Company Inc 1961
187
Linnington Abigail T Captain Unconventional Warfare as a Strategic Foreign Policy Tool The Clinton Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan Thesis The Fletcher School (Tufts University) 2004
Lomperis Timothy J From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996
Magni Frank Sgt ldquoAfghan Army Maneuvers With Task Force Broncordquo Defend America News 13 August 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesaug2004a081304ahtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Malcom Ben S Colonel Retired and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996
Maloney Sean M ldquoAfghanistan From Here to Eternityrdquo Parameters (Spring 2004) 4shy15
Manwaring Max G and John T Fishel ldquoInsurgency and Counter-Insurgency Toward a New Analytical Approachrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 3 no 3 (Winter 1992) 272-310
Marquis Susan L Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces Washington DC The Brookings Institute 1997
Marr Phebe ldquoIraq lsquoThe Day Afterrsquo Internal Dynamics in Post-Saddam Iraqrdquo Naval War College Review I VI no 1 (Winter 2003) Available from httpwwwnewnavy milpressReview2003winterpdfsart1-w03pdf Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
Materazzi Albert ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg italyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Maurer Kevin ldquoIraqis Learn To Take Up Their Own Defenserdquo Fayetteville Online 24 February 2004 Available from httpwwwfayettevilleobservercomprinter phpStory-6193578 Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
McClintock Michael Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 2002 Available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet Accessed on 21 February 2006
McCollaum Peter Major Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
McCormick Gordon Dr US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division Presentation at the Unconventional Warfare
188
Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC
McMillan Joseph ldquoBuilding an Iraqi Defense Forcerdquo Strategic Forum no 198 (June 2003) 1-7
McRaven William H SPEC OPS Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare Theory and Practice Navato CA Presidio Press 1996
Meigs Montgomery C ldquoUnorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) 4-18
Messing Major and William Shingleton National Defense Council Foundation World Conflict List 1999 Available from wwwndeforgConflict_ListWorld99html Internet Accessed on 20 February 2004
Metzgar Major Greg E ldquoUnconventional Warfare Definitions from 1950 to the Presentrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 18-23
Miksche F O Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements London Faber and Faber Limited
Miller Dean J Tech Sgt ldquoUS Teaches Georgians Command Control Skillsrdquo Defend America News 14 July 2002 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesjun2002a061402ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Miller Russell Behind the Lines The Oral History of Special Operations in World War II New York NY New American Library 2002
Morris Niger ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946rdquo BBC History Available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwosoe_printhtml Internet Accessed on 1 December 2005
Műller Kurt E ldquoToward a Concept of Strategic Civil Affairsrdquo Parameters (Winter 1998) 80-98
Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq MNSTC-I et al Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommil Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
Naylor Sean D ldquorsquoPaying the pricersquo for pulling out Commanders see a tough fight to retake Fallujahrdquo The Army Times 4 October 2004 10
Newman Dean S Major ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo Available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
189
ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
OrsquoHanlon Michael E ldquoA Flawed Masterpiece (Afghanistan Conflict 2001-)rdquo Foreign Affairs 81 no 3 (May-June 2002) 1-7
Oakley Robert B and TX Hammes ldquoSecuring Afghanistan Entering a Make-or Break Phaserdquo Strategic Forum no 205 (March 2004) 1-6
Paddock Alfred H Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Washington DC National Defense University 1982
Paddock Jr Alfred H US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Kansas University Press 2002
Prados John Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf Chicago Elephant Paperbacks 1986
Prusher Ilene R ldquoNews outlets flood Kirkuk-and satellite dish sales soar-as Husseinrsquos era of censorship crumblesrdquo Christian Science Monitor 29 April 2003 Available from httpwww csmonitorcom20030429p06s01-woiqhtml Internet Accessed on 30 October 2004
Pullen Randy Col ldquoAfghan National Army Recruiting Extends to Northeastrdquo Defense LINK News 24 September 2004 Available from httpwww defenselinkmil newsSep2004n09242004_2004092402html Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
________ ldquoNew Afghan Soldiers Pledge to Serve a Nationrdquo Defend America News 29 July 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamericamilarticlesjul2004 a072904ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Reed James W ldquoShould Deterrence Fail War Termination in Campaign Planningrdquo Parameters (Summer 1993) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmymiluaswc parameters1993reedhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Robinson Linda Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces New York NY Public Affairs 2004
________ ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 Available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Rothstein Hy S Afghanistan and the Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006
190
Salmoni Barak A ldquoIraq Now Choosing Sovereignty or Democracyrdquo Strategic Insights 3 no 8 (August 2004)
Sandler Stanley ldquoArmy Psywarriors A History of US Army Psychological Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1992) 18-25
Sandler Stanley ldquoSeal the Victory A History of US Army Civil Affairsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 1991) 38-41
Schadlow Nadia ldquoWar and the Art of Governancerdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 85-94
Schoomaker Peter J (GEN CINC US Special Operations Command) ldquoSpecial Operations Forces The Way Aheadrdquo undated 2
Sepp Kalev I Dr ldquoThe Campaign in Transition From Conventional to Unconventional Warrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) Available from httpwwwfind articlescomp articlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442212 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
Shaw Geoffery D T ldquoPolicemen versus Soldiers the Debate Leading to MAAG Objections and Washington Rejections of the Core of the British Counter-Insurgency Advicerdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 12 no 2 (Summer 2001) 15shy78
Shultz Richard H Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999
Simpson Charles M III Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years Novato CA Presido Press 1983
Singlaub John K Major General (ret) Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century New York NY Summit Books 1991
Skinner Mike ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare As an SF mission-Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16 Available from httpwwwfind articlescomparticles mi_m0HZYis_1_15ai_89646648print Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Smith Jeffrey R ldquoKosovo Still Seethes as UN Official Nears Exitrdquo The Washington Post 18 December 2000 A20 quoted in Kimberly C Field and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo Available from httpwww specialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet Accessed on 22 January 2006
191
ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo Available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtm Internet Accessed on 2 December 2005
Steele Dennis ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article onshyline] Available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet Accessed on 14 May 2006
Szelowski David W Lt Col USMCR (ret) ldquoThe Beginning of the Next Warrdquo handlebarsorg July 2003 Available from httpwwwhandlebarsorga=article printamparticleid =204 Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
The Advisor Volume 1 Multi-national Security Transition Command 11 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep11pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 2 Multi-national Security Transition Command 18 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisorTheAdvisor Sep18pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 3 Multi-national Security Transition Command 25 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep25pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Thomas Glenn CPT (now Major) Conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
Tomes Robert R ldquoRelearning Counterinsurgency Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 2004) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0IBR is_1_34ai_115566394 Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Tovo Kenneth E Major ldquoSpecial Forces Mission Focus for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (December 1996) 2-11
Unified Combatant Command for Special Operations Forces ldquoUS Code Title 10 Section 167rdquo Available from www4lawCornelleduuscode Internet Accessed on 10 January 2004
US Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 Available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet Accessed on 6 April 2006
US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978
US Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) ldquoUnconventional Warfare 2020rdquo (Power Point Presentation) No Date
192
US Army Special Operations Command ldquoMission Area Analysis for POM FY02-07rdquo Fort Bragg NC January 1999
US Army Training and Doctrine Command The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Fort Monroe VA GPO 2003
________ TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-520 Fort Monroe VA GPO 2004
US Government The 911 Commission Report Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Washington DC GPO 2004
US Marine Corps Small Wars Manual Manhattan KS Sunflower University Press 1988
Volckmann Russell Lieutenant Colonel US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951
von Clausewitz Carl On War ed and trans by Michael Howard and Peter Paret Princeton NJ Princeton University Press 1976
Warner Michael The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000 Available from httpwww ciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet Accessed on 4 December 2005
Wendt Eric P Lieutenant Colonel (P) ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
Wilcox Greg and Gary I Wilson ldquoMilitary Response to Fourth Generation Warfare in Afghanistanrdquo d-n-inet 5 May 2002 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetfcs wilson_wilcox_miltary_responsehtm Internet Accessed on 11 August 2004
Williams Thomas J ldquoStrategic Leader Readiness and Competencies for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmy miluaswcparameters03summerwilliamshtm Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Wilson Robert Lee Captain ldquoUnconventional Warfare SFrsquos Past Present and Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 24-27
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoPrepared Statement for the House Appropriations Committee Foreign Operations Subcommitteerdquo Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilspeeches 2004 sp20040429-depsecdef0303html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
193
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoThe Road Map for a Sovereign Iraqrdquo Available from httpwww defenselinkmil speeches2004sp20040609-depsecdef0463html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Woodward Bob Plan of Attack New York Simon and Schuster 2004
Yaphe Judith S ldquoTurbulent Transition in Iraq Can It Succeedrdquo Strategic Forum no 208 (June 2004) 1-8
Yardley Michael T E Lawrence A Biography New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000
ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavianhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo Available from httpwwwossog orgyugoshymainlandhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Zoroya Gregg ldquoAfghan duty offers ultimate in unconventional warfarerdquo USA Today 12 April 2004 Available from httpglobalspecopscomultunconventional warfare html Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
194
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
Combined Arms Research Library US Army Command and General Staff College 250 Gibbon Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-2314
LTC (Retired) Joseph G D Babb Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC (Retired) Mark Lauber Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
James Corum PhD Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC Chadwick W Clark Director Combined Arms Center Special Operation Forces Education 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
John C Knie Colonel SF Director of Training and Doctrine US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School Fort Bragg NC 28310
195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
1 Certification Date 16 June 2006
2 Thesis Author Major D Jones
3 Thesis Title Ending the Debate Unconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matter
4 Thesis Committcc Mcmbcrs dwltampb Signatures ylamplzampamp
5 Distribution Statement See distribution statements A-X on reverse then circle appropriate distribution statement letter code below
O B C D E F X SEE EXPLANATION OF CODES ON REVERSE
If your thesis does not fit into any of the above categories or is classified you must coordinate with the classified section at CARL
6 Justification Justification is required for any distribution other than described in Distribution Statement A All or part of a thesis may justify distribution limitation See limitation justification statements 1-10 on reverse then list below the statement(s) that applies (apply) to your thesis and corresponding chapterssections and pages Follow sample format shown below
EXAMPLE Limitation Justification Statement 1 ChapterISection I Page(s)
Direct Military Support (10) Critical Technology (3) Administrative Operational Use (7)
Chapter 3 Section 4 Chapter 2
I I I
12 31 13-32
Fill in limitation justification for your thesis below
Limitation Justification Statement ChapterSection Pagels)
7 MMAS Thesis Authors Signature f
STATEMENT A Approved for public release distribution is unlimited (Documents with this statement may be made available or sold to the general public and foreign nationals)
STATEMENT B Distribution authorized to US Government agencies only (insert reason and date ON REVERSE OF THIS FORM) Currently used reasons for imposing this statement include the following
1 Foreign Government Information Protection of foreign information
2 Proprietary Information Protection of proprietary information not owned by the US Government
3 Critical Technology Protection and control of critical technology including technical data with potential military application
4 Test and Evaluation Protection of test and evaluation of commercial production or military hardware
5 Contractor Performance Evaluation Protection of information involving contractor performance evaluation
6 Premature Dissemination Protection of information involving systems or hardware from premature dissemination
7 AdministrativeOperational Use Protection of information restricted to official use or for administrative or operational purposes
8 Software Documentation Protection of software documentation - release only in accordance with the provisions of DoD Instruction 79302
9 Specific Authority Protection of information required by a specific authority
10 Direct Military Support To protect export-controlled technical data of such military significance that release for purposes other than direct support of DoD-approved activities may jeopardize a US military advantage
STATEMENT C Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and their contractors (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT D Distribution authorized to DoD and US DoD contractors only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT E Distribution authorized to DoD only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10
STATEMENT F Further dissemination only as directed by (controlling DoD office and date) or higher DoD authority Used when the DoD originator determines that information is subject to special dissemination limitation specified by paragraph 4-505 DoD 52001-R
STATEMENT X Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and private individuals of enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical data in accordance with DoD Directive 523025 (date) Controlling DoD office is (insert)
197
CGSC special operation detachment instructors led by LTC Chadwick Clark for their
continued support and encouragement throughout the year I could not have been blessed
with a better group of instructors
Fourth I would also like to thank my Special Forces mentors whom have had the
most profound effect on my understanding of this topic--LTC Mark Grdovic LTC
Jonathan Burns Colonel Kenneth Tovo and Major General Sidney Shachnow I would
also be remiss if I did not thank all of the noncommissioned officers whom I have been
blessed to learn from since I have been in Special Forces especially my old team
members and assistant small group instructors The experiences shared with these
unconventional warriors and leaders have allowed me to put my real world experiences
into context and develop the theories presented in the thesis
Finally I would like to thank all who endured my ranting and raving on this
subject over the last three years especially other Special Forces officers former students
fellow small group instructors staff group 5B and a number of unsuspecting targets of
opportunity who received the verbal executive summary of this project whenever one of
them ventured into my range fan Each one of these opportunities to express the points of
this thesis helped me form my arguments
De Oppresso Liber
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
ACRONYMS ix
ILLUSTRATIONS x
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Research Questions11 Assumptions11 Limitations 11 Scope and Delimitations 12 Significance of this Study 13
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 16
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE22
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine23 Introduction23 The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries25 The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors 28 Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation29 Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History31 Special Operations Executive Summary35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare36 Introduction36 Special Operation Branch 38 The Jedburghs 39 Detachment 101 40 The Operational Groups42 Office of Strategic Services Summary47
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations 49 Introduction49 The Three Disciplines 52 Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability 55
vi
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations 56 Eastern Europe 1949-195657 Korea60 Tibet 63 Cuba 64 Laos65 Vietnam67 Nicaragua 69 Afghanistan and the Soviets70 Central Intelligence Agency Summary73
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 73 Doctrinal Developments 73 The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model96
South Vietnam 100 North Vietnam 102 El Salvador104 Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan107 Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines 109 Operation Iraqi Freedom110 Summary 114
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS115
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare115 Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition 115 Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare120
Foreign Internal Defense126 Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition 126
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 128 Logical Lines of Operations129
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation 131 Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 134 Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation 137
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 138 The Transition Curve Model142
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq 145 Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model149
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense 151 Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency 160 Summary 161
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 163
vii
Conclusion 163 Recommendations165 Areas for Further Research 171
GLOSSARY 173
BIBLIOGRAPHY178
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST 195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 196
viii
ACRONYMS
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
COI Coordinator of Information
CORDS Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support
DET 101 Detachment 101
DOD Department of Defense
FMLN Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front
JP Joint Publication
MI6 Military Intelligence (UK)
NORSO Norwegian Special Operations
OG Operational Groups
OPATT Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams
OSS Office of Strategic Services
SO Special Operation
SOE Special Operations Executive
US United States
USASFC United States Army Special Forces Command
VCI Viet Cong Infrastructure
ix
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model 96
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines132
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation 136
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model137
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model144
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)146
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) 148
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed150
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model160
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a definition is to clarify The term or concept in question should be more understandable once its definition has been presented Generally the ideal definition should leave little or no room for ambiguity1
David Charters and Maurice Tugwell
If you spend more than 30 seconds debating what it means it isnrsquot clear enough for the users2
Clinton JAncher III
Since its birth in 1952 Special Forces have had the exclusive responsibility
within the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct unconventional warfare Joint
Publication (JP) 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms defines unconventional warfare as
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion3
1David Charters and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz (Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984) 29
2Clinton J Ancker III Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing (Fort Leavenworth KS Director of the Armyrsquos Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005)
3Department of Defense Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet accessed on 16 December 2005
1
Although not clear in this definition doctrinally and historically unconventional
warfare is ldquothe culmination of successful [military] efforts to organize and mobilize the
civil populous against a hostile government or an occupying powerrdquo4 United States (US)
Army unconventional warfare doctrine also has an addition not found in the joint
definition stating that this operation is ldquopredominantly conducted through by and with
indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo5 A comparison between the current unconventional
warfare definition and the definition from 1955 highlights how little has changed in over
fifty years
[O]perations conducted in time of war behind enemy lines by predominantly indigenous personnel responsible in varying degrees to friendly control or direction in furtherance of military and political objectives It consists of the interrelated fields of guerrilla warfare evasion and escape and subversion against hostile states6
US unconventional warfare has historically been used in one of two ways either
to support or shape the environment for the larger conventional campaign or as a
unilateral effort generally conducted covertly7 Examples of unconventional warfare
shaping for conventional military operations are well known such as the Allied support
to the resistances in France the Balkans and the Far East in World War II and most
recently in Northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom Unilateral unconventional
4Department of the Army FM 3-0520 Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 26 June 2001) 2-1
5Ibid This version of the definition is also used in FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 1-1
6Colonel (ret) Aaron Bank From OSS to Green Beret The Birth of Special Forces (New York NY Pocket Books 1986) 179
7FM 3-0520 2-3
2
warfare efforts have been much less well known mostly due to their covert nature but
include operations behind the Iron Curtain to develop resistance capabilities in
Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s and again in Afghanistan after the events of
11 September during Operation Enduring Freedom
The unilateral examples cited above have primarily been conducted by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) which also maintains a covert unconventional warfare
capability referred to as paramilitary operations or special operations8 As William
Daugherty notes that for the CIA a special operation ldquomeans paramilitary operations-shy
military-type actions utilizing non-military personnel [indigenous personnel or
surrogates]rdquo9 The CIA has generally been responsible for conducting covert
unconventional warfare as a tool of foreign policy when the president wants to have
plausible deniability especially during peacetime Covert operations are ldquoplanned and
executed to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor A covert
operation differs from a clandestine operation in that the emphasis is placed on
concealment of the operationrdquo10 In times of conflict when military forces are employed
the DOD takes the lead responsibility for unconventional warfare The CIA conducted
numerous covert paramilitary activities during the Cold War against communist regimes
and most recently shaped the environments in Afghanistan and Iraq for Special Forces to
conduct successful unconventional warfare
8William J Daugherty Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004) 15 84-85
9Ibid 15
10FM 3-0520 Glossary 7-8
3
In the early 1960rsquos President Kennedy called upon Special Forces to use its
unconventional warfare skills and knowledge developed to support an insurgency to
defeat the Cold War communist-sponsored insurgencies or wars of national revolutions
threatening to expand globally if not checked This new mission was called foreign
internal defense and was successfully prosecuted by Special Forces teams at the tactical
and operational levels of the Vietnam War JP 1-02 defines foreign internal defense as
ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action
programs taken by another government to free and protect its society from subversion
lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo11 JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes foreign internal defense into three types of
support
Indirect--focuses on building strong national infrastructure through economic and military capabilities that contribute to self sufficiencyrdquo12
Direct (not involving combat operations)--the involvement of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populous or military13
Combat--the use of US forces providing direct assistance to the host nation civilian populace or military14
As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories represent significantly different levels of US
diplomatic and military commitment and riskrdquo15
11JP 1-02
12Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
13Ibid
14Ibid
4
At the same time President Kennedy tasked the CIA with the same mission but
conducted clandestinely The clandestine foreign internal defense mission would later be
known as ldquospecial activitiesrdquo16 As William Daugherty explains
The CIArsquos paramilitary cadre is most often employed in training foreign military and security forces however training that falls under the rubric of special activities but which requires the support of the Agencyrsquos covert action infrastructure--rather than actual combat operations--was by far the most common mission of the paramilitary element17
Even though the CIA mission presented here seems confusing the covert finding is the
constraining document that provides the detailed operational limitations and political
goals alleviating any confusion
By the end of Vietnam Special Forces had also conducted special reconnaissance
against the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos and Cambodia and direct action in the highly-
publicized raid on the Son Tay prison camp in an attempt to rescue American prisoners of
war which would later be added to Special Forces doctrine as personnel recovery With
the strategic military and political failure of Vietnam Special Forces tried to distance
itself from foreign internal defense which carried with it the stigma of Vietnam At the
same time Special Forces all but forgot about its unconventional warfare roots because
the likelihood of successfully conducting unconventional warfare in the nuclear age
seemed remote Instead Special Forces focused on less politically-charged missions
such as special reconnaissance and direct action which both fit nicely in the operations
plans of the Cold War
15Ibid I-4
16Daugherty 85
17Ibid 84-85
5
In the 1980s Special Forces conducted foreign internal defense to defeat an
insurgency in El Salvador and Honduras and provided support to the CIArsquos covert
unconventional warfare efforts to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras
in Nicaragua All of these operations proved successful although Special Forces had only
been utilized in a supporting role during the two unconventional warfare campaigns The
success in El Salvador began a string of successes for Special Forces conducting special
reconnaissance direct action and foreign internal defense in places such as Panama
Desert Storm Bosnia and Kosovo adding other missions such as combat search and
rescue and coalition support to its repertoire as well By 2001 few thought that
unconventional warfare would ever be conducted again and there were numerous studies
to determine the relevancy of unconventional warfare in future conflicts18 In the summer
of 2001 senior Special Forces leadership attempted to ensure continued Special Forces
viability by placing all Special Forces missions under a broad category of unconventional
warfare These included not only Special Forcesrsquo missions to date but now included
counterproliferation combating terrorism and the other collateral activities such as
humanitarian demining operations and coalition support19 However their efforts would
be disrupted by the terrorist attacks of 11 September
Less than two years later Special Forces had successfully prosecuted two
unconventional warfare campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan
using indigenous forces instead of massive conventional formations and the other a
18Colonel Michael R Kershner ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84
19FM 3-0520 2-1
6
shaping operation in northern Iraq using the indigenous Kurdish insurgents to fix thirteen
of twenty Iraqi divisions north of Baghdad lessening the burden on the conventional
combined forces land component commandrsquos southern invasion force Now in the
postconflict phase of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Special Forces should
doctrinally be conducting foreign internal defense helping the indigenous government
forces to defeat internal threats in an attempt to secure the environment and allow the
political processes to develop
To date however Special Forces have been primarily employed in unilateral
actions focused on ldquokill or capturerdquo missions This unilateral employment has all but
negated the force multiplying capability inherent in Special Forces operations through
training and advising indigenous government security forces Instead the conventional
Army has taken on the majority of the training and advising roles in both theaters
Although Special Forces touts working by with and through indigenous forces as its
core competency Special Forces found ways to remove itself from the burden of training
and advising indigenous conventional units in Iraq and Afghanistan Using the Global
War on Terrorism as a reason a similar pattern of passing missions to Marines or
contractors is evident in other foreign internal defense operations such as the Georgian
train and equip mission and the African Crisis Response Initiative now referred to as
ACOTA or African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance20
20GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 available from
7
As of the spring of 2006 the debate continues throughout the Special Forces
community as to whether unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
are still applicable in todayrsquos contemporary operating environment and future conflicts
Studies being conducted seem to continue to suggest that current unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine and definitions need to be ldquotransformedrdquo for a new
application against non-state actors This is a new twist on an old debate However all of
these studies seem to gloss over the fact that in Afghanistan and Iraq unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense have been the primary operations being conducted
by Special Forces
The success of these operations with regards to Special Forcesrsquo efforts is due to
the application of legacy unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
Therefore current attempts to redefine and apply these doctrinal operations in an effort to
ldquotransformrdquo them for the current operations against non-state actors such as al Qarsquoida and
its associated movements have been difficult for one simple reason--historically and
doctrinally unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are only applicable to a
single nation state not a non-state entity21 These operations were never meant for
anything other than supporting insurgencies and or defeating insurgencies within a nation
httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraraycongress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet accessed on 18 April 2005
21Spelling convention for al Qarsquoida used throughout thesis comes from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet accessed on 6 February 2006
8
state and thus have proven themselves to be just as applicable today as in the days of their
inception
In both Iraq and Afghanistan unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
have been operationally linked as never before At some point in time during both of
these operations combat operations shifted to stability operations and with this shift
Special Forces should have changed mission orientation from unconventional warfare to
foreign internal defense However few within the special operations community
identified this transition and continued to define Special Forces operations in both
theaters as unconventional warfare The major obstacle to understanding this linkage is
the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be high-intensity combat theaters nothing like
the low-intensity or traditional peacetime foreign internal defense missions in theaters
like Columbia Thailand or the hundreds of other countries that Special Forces conduct
foreign internal defense as part of the geographic combatant commanderrsquos theater
security cooperation plan
The last historical example of a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense was in France the Balkans and Southeast Asia at the end of World War
II when the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and British Special Operations
Executive (SOE) conducted operations to weaken the occupying Axis powers However
even these case studies are flawed because there was almost no US involvement in the
postwar stability operations in these countries after World War II Germany and France
were the only two countries that the US conducted full-scale stability security transition
and reconstruction operations but since there were no viable resistance organizations for
the OSS and the SOE to support they are of no use to this study In the countries in
9
which OSS and SOE had operated the resistance apparatus was either demobilized-shy
disarmed paid and returned to civilian status or turned over the newly re-established
governments Therefore no relationships between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense were established which led to ldquodemobilizationrdquo becoming part of the
legacy of US unconventional warfare doctrine
Current foreign internal defense doctrine was developed out of Special Forces
experience from communist wars of national liberation in Vietnam and Latin America as
well as US nation building efforts in countries like Haiti Bosnia and Kosovo Special
Forces did not conduct unconventional warfare--US sponsored insurgency--during these
operations even though its mode of operation may have been by through and with
indigenous forces
Understanding the distinction between unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense will be extremely important with the adoption of pre-emption and regime
removal as doctrinal concepts The US military has to be ready for the same kinds of
operations that it has observed since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom where there are unconventional warfare efforts in pre-conflict
and conflict phases which then transition to foreign internal defense operations in the
postconflict phases and finally return to peacetime engagement In developing future
major campaign and operational plans understanding the roles of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as well as how and when these two missions are related will
be extremely important for the planner A solid doctrinal model for this relationship may
be the basis for joint and interagency coordination throughout the campaign
10
Research Questions
The primary research question this thesis will answer is if unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense as currently defined are still applicable to current and future
Special Forcesrsquo operations To answer the primary question three secondary questions
must be answered what are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and
how are they related In answering the secondary question of what unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense are similar tertiary questions must be answered for
each what is the doctrinal and operational history of Special Forces and CIA with respect
to these two missions what is their application against non-state actors and global
insurgency and should they be redefined With regards to the secondary question on the
interrelation of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense the tertiary
questions are Is there an identifiable transition point between the two and can a
relationship be modeled
Assumptions
The major assumption of this research project is that the simple meanings of
words can have a significant effect on the operational employment of Special Forces and
are not just a matter of semantics Another assumption is that senior Special Forces
leaders will be willing to address the findings of this project if they are contrary to current
thoughts and frameworks
Limitations
This thesis is written as an unclassified manuscript using public information that
is available through the Combined Arms Research Library and other electronic and
11
internet databases that are generally available to the public Although the research may be
in the classified and unclassified realm only unclassified materials and references will be
used in the thesis All references will be listed in the bibliography for further research of
the reader
Case studies used in the research and presentation of this thesis will be studied
through secondary sources and will not involve visits to the battlefield or areas of
operations due to lack of dedicated funding for such study In case studies related to
Kosovo or the efforts in Northern Iraq first hand knowledge may be relied upon and
checked with other sources
Scope and Delimitations
This study will assess current unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine of the US Army Special Forces and joint doctrine This study will also address
the current missions that are being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan and compare them
to other unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense missions from history
Classified missions or units will not be discussed by name although unclassified terms
for these missions and elements may be included This may lead to confusion for some
readers that lack special operations background and therefore will be avoided as much
as possible This study will also describe joint and interagency relationships necessary for
Special Forces employment during unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
This study will not describe in detail the other core tasks of Special Forces unless they
have a direct bearing on some finding or recommendation This study will use Special
Forces throughout due to the historical significance of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense to Special Forces The Special Forces branch is the proponent for 12
unconventional warfare doctrine as well However special operations forces could be
used interchangeably where Special Forces are used to describe operations from 1990 to
today
Significance of this Study
The current trend in the Special Forces community is to use unconventional
warfare as an overarching term to describe any operation conducted by through or with
indigenous or surrogate forces even operations that are clearly not aimed at the
overthrow or removal of a hostile government or occupying power Some reasons for
using the term unconventional warfare are to ensure a niche mission for special
operations forces it is a popular term today for the civilian leadership who view
unconventional warfare as the opposite of conventional warfare fitting nicely into the
Global War on Terrorism and a broad definition would seem to un-constrain Special
Forces operations since all missions could invariably be called unconventional and gain
larger political and budgetary support The last point was evident in the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review that recommended a significant increase in special
operations forces to prosecute the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo campaign22
Based on Special Forcesrsquo contemporary experiences the continued
misunderstanding of unconventional warfare and the resulting attempts to redefine it as
an overarching term may have unforeseen and unanticipated consequences on todayrsquos
battlefield and in future campaigns For example the rules of engagement in ldquoclassicrdquo
22Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report (6 February 2006) available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
13
unconventional warfare aimed at overthrowing or removing a government is much less
restrictive than the rules of engagement in a foreign internal defense mission23 In the
latter mission the rules of engagement are very restrictive Thus using unconventional
warfare as an overarching term could have ramifications in places where Special Forcesrsquo
efforts are purely to train and advise a host nation to deny sanctuary to its enemies In this
case the restrictions keep US military efforts from being directly employed such as in
Colombia The rules of engagement are directly tied to the most important word when
dealing with operations that require the support of the local populations and international
opinion legitimacy
For the US to support an insurgency or to support a government fighting an
insurgency the question of legitimacy is primary According to Timothy J Lomperis ldquoan
insurgency is a political challenge to a regimersquos authority by an organized and violent
questioning of the regimersquos claims to legitimacyrdquo24 Based on this definition when the
US is conducting unconventional warfare in support of an insurgency it is also
challenging the legitimacy of the regime and may be using conventional military means
as well When the US is supporting a government using foreign internal defense then it is
supporting the claims of legitimacy of the host nation Based on the recent experiences in
Iraq and Afghanistan it is obvious that at some point when the transition from conflict to
postconflict or unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The US military
23Major Peter McCollaum Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
24Timothy J Lomperis From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam (Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996) 33
14
must constrain its use of military action to legitimize its efforts and those of the new
government Not understanding this leads to the misuse of its firepower-centric
conventional military capabilities that ultimately decrease ones legitimacy This point is
highlighted in JP 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal
Defense
The nature of US tactical participation in HN[Host Nation] internal conflicts requires judicious and prudent rules of engagement (ROE) and guidelines for the application of force Inappropriate destruction and violence attributed to US forces may easily reduce the legitimacy and sovereignty of the supported government In addition these incidents may be used by adversaries to fuel anti-American sentiments and assist the cause of the opposition25
This is further evidenced by the outcry over the use of ldquotorturerdquo to gather intelligence the
environment has changed and legitimacy may be more important for long-lasting support
than the short-term gains of torture
The purpose of this thesis is to clarify the doctrine and attempt to end the nearly
fifty-five year old debate determine the relationship of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense and determine what the application of these two missions will be
in the Global War on Terrorism In this ldquolong warrdquo as Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld calls it understanding exactly what kind of operation is being undertaken and
the environment will be critical for maintaining legitimacy of US efforts and those of
friendly insurgencies and governments to maintain local regional and international
support for the Global War on Terrorism
25JP 3-071 I-14
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are numerous sources available on both the topics of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense These sources include books professional civilian
journal articles military doctrinal manuals and military journals specifically Special
Warfare magazine produced by the United States John F Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School The use of unconventional warfare in these publications runs the
gambit from describing support to insurgency to the use of special operations forces
conducting unilateral operations In some cases counterinsurgency is also described as a
component of unconventional warfare The literature review shows that there is obviously
a lot of confusion on terms and definitions related to unconventional warfare
The most current information on unconventional warfare and Special Forces
operations can be found in three different manuals The first is US Army Field Manual
(FM) 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations (1999) the second is Change 1 FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations (2004) and third FM 3-05201 Special Forces
Unconventional Warfare Operations (2003) All three manuals use the unconventional
warfare definition found in the 2001 Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Currently the final draft of the newest FM
3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare is being reviewed Due to its final
draft status and classification none of the newest changes will be directly addressed in
this thesis There is currently no joint doctrine for unconventional warfare
16
Some of the useful historical unconventional warfare related documents are the
FM 31-20 series of manuals (1961 and 1965) These manuals are the last ldquountaintedrdquo
versions prior to the lessons and doctrine from Special Forces involvement in Vietnam
being incorporated into doctrine The Special Forces manuals after 1965 increasingly
show the effects of mission creep and a graying of unconventional warfare and
counterinsurgency It was out of this confusion that todayrsquos broad unconventional warfare
definition arose
In the summer of 2001 the United States Army Special Forces Command
(USASFC) completed a study called Unconventional Warfare 2020 The aim of the study
was to define Special Forcesrsquo future concepts and ensure relevancy for the force as the
Army was concurrently conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates as part of
Joint Vision 2020 now referred to as ldquotransformationrdquo Colonel Michael Kershner
former Deputy Commander of USASFC summarized the findings of this study in a
series of articles such as the one that appeared in the Winter 2001 edition of Special
Warfare titled ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military
Operationsrdquo However the events of 11 September would put these efforts on hold In
2003 the newest version of next FM 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare
Operations was published This version should have captured the findings from the
Unconventional Warfare 2020 study but in fact they had been lost To date they have not
been addressed with the focus now turned towards the application of unconventional
warfare against non-state actors
Foreign internal defense references are even more plentiful and the term more
commonly understood The volume of work on this subject is due to the renewed interest
17
in the subject based on the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the
publication of the DOD Directive 300005 titled Military Support for Stability Security
Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) However there are few works that address
foreign internal defense in a high-intensity environment Others only describe foreign
internal defense as training missions in support of host nation governments
There are two excellent foreign internal defense manuals FM 21-20-3 Foreign
Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces published in
1994 and the Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for
Foreign Internal Defense which was updated in early 2004 These manuals are the
clearest and most concise documents dealing with foreign internal defense This is most
likely due to the fact that foreign internal defense doctrine is much more black and white
than unconventional warfare doctrine An extremely detailed historical study of the
development of US counterinsurgency doctrine leading up to the formal foreign internal
defense doctrine can be found in Larry Cablersquos book Conflict of Myths The Development
of American Counterinsurgency Doctrine and the Vietnam War published in 1986
There are no sources that address any type of transition between the
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense There are however some
references to the transition or termination point between conflict and postconflict
operations of conventional forces that may be applicable to defining the unconventional
warfare to foreign internal defense transition The most significant problem with these
studies is that they were written prior to 11 September and focus on the termination of
combat operations versus the termination of hostilities or the return to peacetime
engagement
18
Special Warfare magazine also provides a sense of past and current trends of
understanding of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense from the
perspective of Special Forces concept and doctrinal development The large body of
articles in Special Warfare highlights the confusion surrounding unconventional warfare
The most recent example of senior Special Forces leader misunderstanding
unconventional warfare is found in the May 2004 Special Warfare in which now retired
Major General Geoffrey C Lambert former commanding general of the Special Warfare
Center and School explains that ldquoSpecial Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare
which includes counterinsurgency [authorsrsquo emphasis] and guerrilla warfarerdquo
A more recent issue April 2005 had an article titled ldquoOperation White Star A
UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo by Major Dean S Newman in which he
describes the use of unconventional warfare to fight insurgencies and terrorism His
premise is based on his historical analysis of the White Star program a clandestine CIA
special activity program to support indigenous Laotian Hmong tribesmen to disrupt North
Vietnamese Ho Chi Minh Trail and sanctuary areas inside of Laos While commonly
referred to as an unconventional warfare program by many historians and authors White
Star was actually a clandestine foreign internal defense operation using an indigenous
element to fight an insurgency when the host nation government did not want to get
involved The article is fraught with contradictions and misuse of terms and ideas Had
Major Newman approached this topic from the point of view that the North Vietnamese
were ldquooccupyingrdquo these Laotian sanctuary areas and that the Laotian government was
unable to regain control he may have been able to substantiate his argument that White
19
Star was an unconventional warfare operation However his argument that
unconventional warfare can be used against an insurgency is still an oxymoron
One of the best sources on the future of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense is Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-3-520
Military Operations Future Force Concepts for Army Special Operations Forces dated
14 January 2004 This pamphlet provides the conceptual foundation for the
transformation current Special Forces operations into what is referred to as full spectrum
Special Forces operations In the full spectrum Special Forces operations concept
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are two of the three major mission
sets This is a departure from the Unconventional Warfare 2020 findings since it once
talks specifically of two separate missions unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense This publication was not published by the doctrine branches of the Special
Warfare Center and School which may account for its significant departure from the
mainstream of Special Forces doctrine published by the Special Warfare Center
Historical references for unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense are
mostly detailed studies of the history of Special Forces An example of this is Thomas
Adamsrsquo US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional
Warfare Susan Marquisrsquo Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations
Forces and most recently Hy Rothsteinrsquos Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of
Unconventional Warfare published in 2006 The best book for understanding the original
intent of unconventional warfare is found in Colonel Aaron Bankrsquos autobiography From
OSS to Green Berets Bank who recently died at the age of 101 was known as the
ldquofather of Special Forcesrdquo His book describes in detail how he worked on developing the
20
Special Forces in the early 1950s This is one of the few primary sources from one of the
original authors of Special Forces doctrine With respect to foreign internal defense
primary sources Charles Simpson provides an excellent account of the first thirty years
of Special Forces in his book Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years
There have also been numerous Command and General Staff College Master of
Military Art and Science and School of Advanced Military Studies thesis papers on both
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense and their application across the
spectrum of operations One School of Advanced Military Studiesrsquo thesis by Major Duke
C Shienle provides some insight on the use of indigenous forces developed for
unconventional warfare in the postconflict phase and uses ldquounconventional operationsrdquo to
highlight the overarching use of indigenous forces in both missions He also suggests
renaming the final phase of unconventional warfare from demobilization to postconflict
to highlight the use of indigenous forces in both environments
Review of the literature indicates there are no definitive studies that answer the
questions proposed here Indeed most of the literature on these topics have not provided
suitable definitions of unconventional warfare and continue to demonstrate a lack of
common understanding or agreement as to what unconventional warfare is With respect
to foreign internal defense numerous articles have been written on this subject but none
have presented options for the employment of Special Forces found in this thesis and no
articles have been written on trying to redefine foreign internal defense Finally no
articles have been written that have tried to explain the relationship between
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
21
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY THE PAST IS PROLOGUE
The purpose of this research is to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense as traditionally defined are still applicable to Special Forces operations
in the contemporary and future operating environments This chapter will begin to answer
the tertiary research question ldquoWhat is the doctrinal and operational history of the
Special Forces and the CIA with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defenserdquo This will be accomplished using three research methods doctrinal
development comparison historical comparison and case studies
The doctrinal development and historical comparisons will be intertwined due to
the nature of this subject in which doctrine and historical developments happened
concurrently This study will chronicle the doctrinal development of US unconventional
warfare from the British development of this concept prior to World War II to todayrsquos
operations The comparison will be made in relation to the SOE the OSS the CIA and
finally the US Army Special Forces This construct was chosen because it allowed the
chronological development of unconventional warfare doctrine and practice from the
original concepts developed by the forefathers of the British SOE to the establishment of
the American OSS and the growing and employment pains of unconventional warfare in
World War II
The study will then focus on the sometimes rough transition from the OSS to the
CIA and the history of the agencyrsquos use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense up to the events of 11 September As for the Special Forces the study will
22
analyze the history of Special Forces and with respect to unconventional warfare and
later foreign internal defense from the initial concepts for a military unconventional
warfare capability in the early 1950 to the present
Each historical analysis will be summarized with respect to the type of operation-shy
unconventional warfare or foreign internal defense the signature of the operation--overt
to covert the operational relationship--decisive or shaping and finally the operations
approach--indirect direct and combat--the same support pattern from foreign internal
defense doctrine Lastly in the unconventional warfare cases an analysis will also be
made as to the mode of transition of the resistance forces whether they were
demobilized turned over to the government immediately or if US efforts or ties to the
organization were stopped with no transitory event
The Roots of United States Unconventional Warfare Doctrine
Introduction
World War I witnessed the first modern use of unconventional warfare as an
economy of force operation by both the British and Germans in peripheral campaigns
outside of continental Europe In essence unconventional warfare is the support to an
indigenous insurgent or resistance group aimed at overthrowing a constituted government
or an occupying power respectively Unconventional warfare can be used to support to
resistance elements also known as partisans resisting an occupier as an economy of
force during major operations by forcing the commitment of enemy conventional forces
to guarding rear areas instead of being employed on the front lines
The primary benefit of unconventional warfare is the disproportionate resources
that a government or an occupier is forced to commit against a relatively weak opponent 23
The insurgent if employed correctly maintains the initiative by deciding the time and
place of its attacks In other words they never conduct an operation unless success is
likely or outweighs the risk to the insurgent movement For the hostile government or
occupier large amounts of resources including personnel money and equipment are
necessary to secure lines of communication key facilities and capabilities and key
terrain When in support of a conventional military effort these enemy resources are kept
from being deployed to main conventional battle areas By World War II unconventional
warfare had become a great threat to modern armies because of their ldquoabsolute
dependence on industrial and economic bases in their rear and on lines of
transportationrdquo26
During World War I unconventional warfare was used by both the British and the
Germans The young British Captain (later Colonel) T E Lawrence an advisor to Sherif
Feisal the future King of Iraq used the Arab Army to help the British defeat the Turks27
In East Africa the German Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck commanded a
guerrilla army of 14000 which successfully tied down the efforts of 160000 British
Portuguese and Belgian troops28 Both of these efforts were successful not due to the
tactical outcome of their efforts to support partisan forces but at the operational and
strategic level by diverting enemy forces from other fronts Both of these efforts proved
26F O Miksche Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements (London Faber and Faber Limited) 35
27Michael Yardley T E Lawrence A Biography (New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000) 83-84
28Robert B Asprey War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History (New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994) 174
24
the concept of supporting indigenous resistance elements but given the scale and
devastation of World War I especially on the Western Front the British failed to initially
assimilate these lessons into their doctrine assuming that the next great power war would
not occur for at least ten years29
During the interwar years unconventional warfare was virtually forgotten until
the rise of Adolph Hitler energized the study of unconventional warfare by the British
These studies began in 1938 when Adolph Hitler annexed Austria and the British began
to look seriously at the possibility of another war against Germany The British War
Office driven by the impending German threat to Europe tasked individuals each with
varying degrees of experience in irregular warfare to study irregular capabilities and
operations as well as to develop operational concepts for the employment of such forces
To their credit they produced extraordinary results considering the complexity of these
types of operations As a result of these studies the British developed the SOE in midshy
1940
The British Unconventional Warfare Visionaries
One of the first individuals to be tasked with the detailed study of unconventional
warfare concepts was Major Lawrence Grand assigned under Admiral ldquoQuexrdquo Sinclair
the head of the British Secret or Special Intelligence Service to look at ldquothe theory of
secret offensives how could enemies be attacked otherwise than by the usual military
meansrdquo30 Simultaneously other officers were given similar tasks and as happens with
29M R D Foot The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 (London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984) 9
30Ibid 10-11 25
projects surrounded in secrecy none of them knew of the parallel efforts From this
emerged another unconventional warfare visionary Lieutenant Colonel J C F Holland
who became interested in ldquoirregular warfarerdquo based on his experiences in Ireland and his
first-hand knowledge of the T E Lawrencersquos operations against the Turks As M R D
Foot describes Hollandrsquos studies
[He] collected reports on Boer tactics in the South African war on Lawrence and his partners on guerilla activities in the Russian civil war the Spanish Civil War the struggle between China and Japan the smouldering [sic] Arab-Jewish conflicts in Palestine and of course on Ireland31
Holland became an advocate of irregular warfare which at the time included guerrilla
warfare and psychological operations and had sufficient backing by the deputy director
of British Intelligence that his ideas would become the foundation of the yet-to-beshy
formed SOE
Another visionary that would tie all of these studies together was Sir Colin
Gubbins Described by S J Lewis as ldquoone of the most important personalities of the
SOErdquo Gubbins would later rise to distinction as the commander of the SOE32 Gubbins
wrote two field manuals or pamphlets The Art of Guerrilla Warfare and Partisan
Leadersrsquo Handbook both of which would become the core training documents for future
SOE operatives33
The final visionary and a man with sufficient knowledge and political influence to
provide the strategic vision for an organization such as the SOE was Dr Hugh Dalton
31Ibid 11-12
32S J Lewis Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 (Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991) 3
33Ibid
26
who was the Minister of Economic Warfare in 1940 After a meeting in mid-July of
1940 aimed at trying to decide who would head an organization for conducting irregular
warfare Dalton wrote a letter that laid out the intent of such an organization and a basic
strategy for its employment As Dalton explained ldquoWe have got to organize movements
in enemy-occupied territory comparable to the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland [and] to
the Chinese Guerillas now operating against Japanrdquo34 He described this organization
as a ldquodemocratic internationalrdquo and suggested that it ldquomust use many different methods
including industrial and military sabotage labour agitation and strikes continuous
propaganda terrorist acts against traitors and German leaders boycotts and riotsrdquo35 He
suggested that there needed to be ldquoa new organization to co-ordinate inspire control and
assist the nationals of oppressed countries who must themselves be the direct participants
We need absolute secrecy a certain fanatical enthusiasm willingness to work with
people of different nationalities [and] complete political reliabilityrdquo36 Dalton would
become SOErsquos first chairman responsible to the chief of staff of the War Cabinet who
would provide him with the strategic intent for SOE operations He was ordered by
Churchill to ldquoset Europe ablazerdquo37
While there were others that were involved in the development of the SOE these
four visionaries stand out as the most important to the overall development of British
unconventional warfare capabilities leading up to the establishment of the SOE
34Foot 19
35Ibid
36Ibid
37Ibid 30
27
The Greatest Weapon of the Special Operations Executive - The Resistors
The SOErsquos most powerful weapon and what set SOE apart from MI6--the British
intelligence service whose primary mission was espionage was SOErsquos ability to organize
armed indigenous populations in occupied territories to resist their occupiers SOE
operatives were simply the facilitators to make the resistance organizations a viable threat
to the occupying forces With the advent of man-portable long-range communications
and aerial delivery systems these populations were now within reach and could be
supported by bringing material by air as well as synchronized into the larger theater
campaign What made this such a worthwhile venture was the large number of potential
recruits thanks to the interests and actions of the German occupiers As F O Miksche
explains ldquoPrecisely as in the First World War the German war aims were too vague
and indefinite to offer any attractions to the people of Europe the Germans in both
world conflicts were psychologically incapable of gaining the sympathy of the masses38
These operations would force the Germans and their allies to expend exponentially
increasing numbers of troops the farther they advanced from Germany As Miksche
notes ldquoHitlerrsquos armoured legions which were able to first surround the enemy forces
were themselves ultimately surrounded by wholly hostile populationsrdquo39 It would be
these populations that the SOE would organize train and advise
38Miksche 45
39Ibid 73
28
Concept of the Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operation
The conceptual applications of unconventional warfare by the British and their
actual operational successes were a testament to the capabilities of the resistance The
British SOE was originally based on small teams that would be able to organize
resistance cells and intelligence networks These SOE operatives would infiltrate into a
denied area by air boat or rat-line--a clandestine means of moving personnel overland
by different techniques They would then linkup with the indigenous resistance force and
develop the force for further operations and intelligence collection The organization for
an average network or circuit included an organizer a courier who was often a woman a
wireless operator and a sabotage instructor Once on the ground the organizers and
wireless operators if not one in the same minimized contact as much as possible because
the wireless ldquowas always the circuitrsquos weakest pointrdquo40
Initially the SOE established small clandestine cellular networks in German-
occupied territory called ldquoreseauxrdquo41 In such an environment the first step in establishing
a network was for a single agent to parachute in to pave the way for the network leader
who would follow a number of days later The initial agent was responsible for
establishing or making contact with intelligence and support networks The network
leader would then parachute in and continue to expand the network He would receive
further augmentation over time depending on his requests The network leader could also
40Foot 106
41Sir Robin Brook ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed (Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992) 69
29
request low-density specialties if necessary This was the case when Francis Suttill head
of the Prosper network in Paris requested an operator skilled at identifying and
establishing air landing zones Three months after the establishment of the Prosper
network Henri Dericourt a former French pilot arrived and was able to organize landing
areas that would receive over sixty-seven agents42
The SOE was also capable of supporting and organizing larger resistance
organizations especially in countries such as Yugoslavia where the resistance had
liberated areas in which the resistance armies could grow relatively unhindered by Axis
counterinsurgency operations This was also possible in France but security concerns
lengthened the time for these networks to grow into substantial numbers The French
Jockey network led by Francis Cammaerts developed into a large network carefully over
time Cammaerts accomplished this by establishing a true self-healing cellular network of
independent but linked groups that kept the network safe even if one of the independent
cells was disrupted This network grew to an amazing army of 10000 resistance
members that encompassed areas from Lyons to the Mediterranean coast to the Italian
and Swiss Frontiers43 In support of Normandy SOE and the US OSS formed the
Jedburghs which operated ldquounder secrecy but more exposed and apt to be in uniform
[which] was more appropriate for close cooperation with invading Allied troopsrdquo44
42ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtmInternet accessed on 2 December 2005
43Ibid
44Brook 69
30
Special Operations Executive Unconventional Warfare Operational History
The SOE traces its lineage directly to the British Secret Intelligence Service
better known as MI6 After MI6rsquos embarrassing loss of its intelligence networks in most
of occupied Europe to German penetration it would take Daltonrsquos SOE to reestablish
intelligence and operational networks that would support Allied operations throughout
the war A short time before the German invasion and occupation of France the chiefs of
staff of the British War Cabinet identified one British strategic objective as ldquothe creation
of widespread revolt in Germanyrsquos conquered territoriesrdquo45 To this end they realized
that an organization would have to be established to meet this goal Lord Neville
Chamberlain whom had resigned as the British Prime Minister after mishandling Hitler
at Munich was still a powerful influence as a member of the War Cabinet and signed the
founding charter of SOE on 19 July 1940 This charter established by name the SOE and
its role ldquoto co-ordinate [sic] all action by way of subversion and sabotage against the
enemy overseasrdquo46
The SOErsquos original capabilities came from the MI6 Section D EH and MI R
Section D which stood for destruction had been MI6rsquos sabotage section47 The Electra
House or EH as it was known was the site of Sir Campbell Stuartrsquos Department a
subsection of the Foreign Office of MI648 MI R stood for Military Intelligence
45Foot 18
46Ibid 20-21
47Ibid 22
48Ibid 253
31
Research49 Originally SOE was subdivided into three special operations branches SO1
SO2 and SO3 SO1 was the propaganda section but in August 1941 it was taken away
from SOE after numerous arguments and turned into its own department the Political
Warfare Executive SO2 was the active operations department while SO3 was for
planning50 There were also compartmentalized sections for each occupied country and a
liaison relationship existed with the governments in exile or representatives of
independent resistance organizations
The rivalry between the MI6 and SOE would continue throughout the war for one
simple reason as Roy Godson explains
There are invariably tensions between the [clandestine collectors and covert action officers] Clandestine collectors frequently work with sources who have political goals the same kinds of people who would also be targeted by covert action officers Covert action officersrsquo connections meanwhile are almost by definition good for the collector51
Nigel Morris describes MI6rsquos reservations about the SOE ldquo[The] Head of SIS [Secret
Intelligence Service] Sir Stewart Menzies stated repeatedly that SOE were lsquoamateur
dangerous and bogusrsquo and took it upon himself to bring massive internal pressure to bear
on the fledgling organizationrdquo52 The other ldquosecret rivalsrdquo as Foot calls them included not
only the propaganda branches but with the Admiralty over SOE maritime operations the
49Ibid 254
50Ibid 22
51Roy Godson Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence (New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004) 34-35
52Niger Morris ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940shy1946rdquo BBC History available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwo soe_printhtml Internet accessed on 1 December 2005
32
Air Ministry over air clearance and with the Royal Air Force over who was more
effective53 Morris also noted that ldquoBomber Command also despised SOE and resented
having to loan aircraft for lsquounethicalrsquo clandestine missions They wanted to win the war
by bombing Germany to its kneesrdquo54
Some of the more famous and unclassified operations that the SOE conducted
include the sabotage of the Pessac power station in France the assassination of Reinhard
Heydrich in Czechoslovakia the destruction of the Gorgopotamos rail bridge in Greece
and the destruction of the German heavy-water plant in Norway The destruction of the
Pessac power plant disrupted German U-boat operations at the port in Bordeaux The
assassination of Heydrich was carried out to counter his new posting and strong arm
counterinsurgent tactics which included round-up executions The Gorgopotamos rail
bridge linked a secondary supply route for the German effort in North Africa Finally
destruction of the heavy-water plant and associated barges crippled the Germanrsquos atomic
weapons program in 194355 The most notable resistance operations took place in support
of the D-Day landings by disrupting German reserves logistics and by providing
intelligence and guides to advancing Allied forces As Foot highlights ldquoAll told about
10000 tons of warlike stores were put into France by SOE 4000 of them before and
6000 after the landing in Normandy arms for about half a million men and a fair amount
of explosivesrdquo56
53Foot 26-27
54Morris
55Ibid
56Foot 222-3 33
The British employed about 5000 SOE operators during the war the largest
contingent going to France and Yugoslavia followed by Greece Italy Belgium Poland
Albania Abyssinia Burma Malaya Scandinavia Switzerland Hungary Romania Siam
the Dutch East Indies and lesser operations in Turkey and China57 Resistance forces
supported by the SOE while not decisive shaped the battle space by tying up numerous
Axis divisions in each country In 1942 the exiled governments of the Czechs Dutch
French Norwegians and Poles suggested to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff that
there should be a single headquarters to direct irregular operations in occupied Europe
As Foot notes ldquo[they] were each astonished to receive his reply that such a body had
already existed for almost two years [which] lsquoleft the Allied commanders breathless
SOE was so secret that its name and existence had never been disclosed to themrdquo58 The
most extreme example of these combined operations was in Poland at the maximum
reach of SOErsquos air branch Polish resistance received 485 successful drops during the
war three hundred SOE operatives and twenty-eight couriers all but five which were
Polish and 600 tons of war material59
In January of 1944 SOE and the US OSS which was modeled after the SOE in
1942 merged headquarters for the invasion called the Special Forces Headquarters In
1946 the SOE rivalry with MI6 ended with many of the SOE networks to include its
world wide communications being shutdown or transferred to MI6 under Menzies Thus
ended the SOE
57Ibid 62 172-242
58Ibid 152
59Ibid 191
34
Special Operations Executive Summary
While some would argue that SOErsquos contributions were negligible in the overall
scheme of the war they are best summed up in a letter from General Dwight D
Eisenhower to Gubbins on 31 May 1945
In no previous war and in no other theatre during this war have resistance forces been so closely harnessed to the main military effort While no final assessment of the operational value of resistance action has yet been completed I consider that the disruption of enemy rail communications the harassing of German road moves and the continual and increasing strain placed on the German war economy and internal security services throughout occupied Europe by the organized forces of resistance played a very considerable part in our complete and final victory60
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
SOE operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements It was
not covert per say since it was generally known that the Allies were conducting these
operations The SOE operations were shaping operational versus decisive supporting the
Allied efforts before and after D-Day Lastly the operational approach was for the most
part combat support with each element conducting combat advising However as the
networks grew and cadres were trained by the SOE operators as in the case of the Jockey
network the individual cells conducted operations coordinated by the Special Forces
Headquarters but not directly supervised by the SOE operatives thus the approach was
more direct than combat support
60ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo
35
The Office of Strategic Services and Unconventional Warfare
Introduction
With Americarsquos sudden entrance into World War II the US scrambled to gain a
war footing and mobilize for war One of its weakest areas was the lack of capabilities to
gather strategic intelligence This weakness was highlighted by the failures of any
coordinated intelligence effort to provide early warning of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor in December 1941 The US looked to the British for help with establishing an
intelligence capability Roy Godson points out that for ldquoall intents and purposes US
security [was] being run for [the US] at the Presidentrsquos request by the Britishrdquo61 The
British agent of influence was William Stephenson of the British Security Coordination
who had the ear to the President in much the same way the British had influenced US
commitment in World War I Stephenson would help the legendary William ldquoWild Billrdquo
Donovan organize the first American centralized intelligence organization initially called
the Coordinator of Information (COI) on 11 July 1941 which in 1942 became the
OSS62
The COI organization had three sub-branches all focused on intelligence
gathering The Radio News Branch the Research and Analysis Branch and the Visual
Present Branch Eighty to ninety percent of the intelligence gathered by the Research and
Analysis Branch came from open sources such as its Division of Special Information
Library of Congress63 When COI was transformed into the OSS organization in 1942
61Godson 23
62Ibid
63Brook 89
36
the organizational changes were significant First the organizationrsquos main operational
elements were split into two deputy directorates the Deputy Director of Strategic
Services Operations and Deputy Director of Intelligence Services The Strategic Services
Operations were further sub-divided into six subordinate elements Special Operations
Morale Operations Maritime Units Special Projects Field Experimental Unit and
Operational Group Command The Intelligence Services was sub-divided into five units
Secret Intelligence X-2 or Counterintelligence Research and Analysis Foreign
Nationalities and Censorship and Documents
As Lawrence McDonald noted ldquoGeneral Donovan believed that the principal
contribution of OSS would be strategic intelligence which is the basis for the formation
of national policyrdquo64 It would reason then that the primary effort for collection and
analysis would fall upon the offices of the Director of Intelligence however McDonald
explains that ldquoSome of the most valuable information contributed by the OSS was
the tactical or field intelligence often provided by the Special Operations Branch (SO)
teams working behind enemy lines with resistance groupsrdquo65
Before the COI initially lacked any organization or doctrine for conducting
clandestine and covert operations it would learn from and copy a great deal of the
infrastructure already established by the British SOE and MI6 This relationship benefited
both countries For the US the benefits included intelligence training and the vast
experience base that the British had in place with MI6 and then with the SOE For the
British the US brought money and resources that the British were able to benefit from
64McDonald 93
65Ibid
37
due to its close relationship The British at first were protective of their operations and
agents in occupied Europe fearful that the Americarsquos inexperience could harm their
current operations Over time these relationships strengthened although there were still
some problems depending on political constraints or desires that one country had over the
other
Special Operation Branch
Lawrence McDonald provides an excellent description of the Special Operation
(SO) Branch ldquoThe foremost concern of SO teams and missions was liaison with the
resistance providing weapons and supplies to the indigenous underground forces
training them and planning and coordinating their sabotage with Allied operationsrdquo66
The SO was also responsible for some collateral activities including gathering
operational and strategic targeting information and for recovering downed Allied
aircrews67 SO took place in Europe and Asia with operational patterns and methods for
supporting resistance movements much like the SOE As Michael Warner highlights
ldquoThis emphasis on guerrilla warfare and sabotage fit with William Donovanrsquos vision of
an offensive in depth in which saboteurs guerrillas commandos and agents behind
enemy lines would support the armyrsquos advancerdquo68
66Ibid
67Ibid
68Michael Warner The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000) available from httpwwwciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet accessed on 4 December 2005
38
It was this common ground between the British SOE and US SO that allowed the
first bonds to be strengthened The Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff decided
that the SOE and SO would operate together an idea from which were born the
Jedburghs
The Jedburghs
The Jedburghs dropped into Belgium Holland and France on or after the
Normandy invasion to support the Allied efforts as they moved inland The Jedburghs or
Jeds were specially-trained three-man teams composed of different nationalities to assist
local resistance forces during the final weeks of German occupation Of the three men on
team one was an enlisted radio operator with the other two being officers One of the
officers was native to the country the team deployed to while the other officer was either
British SOE or American OSS The Jeds primary task was to disrupt ldquoGerman
reinforcements to the Normandy beachhead or the Allied landings in southern
Francerdquo69 They also provided valuable tactical intelligence and were able to provide
guides and security for advancing Allied units The efforts of the Jedburghs and their
resistance counterparts may have kept eight German divisions from reaching the
beachheads70
The after-action review of the Jeds highlight the growing pains in the evolution of
the integration of SO and SOE supported resistance groups within the overall
conventional campaign plan A common problem was the need to be infiltrated into the
69Lt Col Will Irvin (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 (New York NY PublicAffairs 2005) 236
70Ibid
39
operational area weeks or months early to capitalize on the full potential of resistance
groups Infiltrating on or after D-Day did not allow the Jeds enough time to train their
counterparts or develop intelligence networks Because of this they were not able operate
at their optimum capability The flow of information was lacking and timeliness of
reports affected ground operations Senior conventional commanders were unaware of
the capabilities of the Jedburghs and their resistance groups for providing accurate
intelligence guides and interpreters These operations generated so much information
that ldquothe SFHQ [Special Forces Headquarters] message centers were receiving so much
traffic that it became impossible to analyze act upon and disseminate informationrdquo71
Despite these difficulties the Jedburgh concept was as Lewis point out ldquoahead of its
time One of the more important successes for the Jedburgh operations was the
psychological impact the teams had on the citizens of occupied France [as] harbinger
of liberation and a call to actionrdquo72 With the end of the European theater the OSS was
redeployed to the Pacific and continued their exploits
Detachment 101
The most famous OSS detachment of the Burma campaign was Detachment 101
or DET 101 The Burma campaign centered around lines of communications such as the
Ledo-Burma Road which had to be secured in order to allow the Allies to reestablish
contact with the Chinese nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek The mission was to gain
control of the Ledo-Burma Road from Japanrsquos 15th Army and was as noted by Warner
71Lewis 62
72Ibid 65-66
40
ldquothe closest to realizing General Donovanrsquos original vision of lsquostrategicrsquo support to
regular combat operationsrdquo73
Donovan had been trying to establish an OSS presence in the China-Burma-India
theater and proposed a plan for using agents to sabotage Japanese rear areas Donovan
took advantage of General Stillwellrsquos lack of ldquonordquo as an opportunity to get operations
going before Stilwell could stop the mission The mission was given to a Captain who
had served under Stillwell After standing up DET 101 rushing through training of
which little was applicable to the Far East DET 101 arrived in theater only to find
Stillwell waffling on DET 101rsquos employment Stilwell did not have the resources to drive
the Japanese from the area around the north Burmese city of Myitkyina which was
hampering air operations and the completion of an alternate route Stilwell gave DET 101
the mission
After some difficulty getting into the area of operation DET 101 infiltrated and
began to transition from sabotage to guerrilla warfare but more importantly were able to
develop an extensive intelligence network that provided Stillwell with valuable
intelligence74 With less the 120 Americans at any one time DET 101 had recruited over
11000 native Kachins75 By the end of DET 101rsquos mission they rescued over 400
downed pilots and provided eighty percent of 10th Air Forcersquos targets76 In addition
73Warner
74David W Hogan Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II (Washington DC Department of the Army 1992) 99-106
75Warner
76Hogan 111
41
DET 101 had successfully developed an indigenous force that fixed two Japanese
divisions during the final Allied offensive in Burma77
The Operational Groups
Operational Groups (OGs) were developed to conduct behind-the-lines
commando operations and were composed of US Army soldiers General Donovanrsquos
concept for the OGs was based on his ldquobelief that the rich ethnic makeup of our country
would provide second generation American soldiers with language facility who could
be parachuted into enemy occupied territory to harass the enemy and encourage local
resistance organizationsrdquo78 They were designated to fight in uniform and had no
connection to the OSS thus protecting them from being shot as spies if captured79
The OGs were organized fifteen man detachments with two officers and thirteen
noncommissioned officers They were all trained in physical conditioning land
navigation night operations explosive training weapons light infantry tactics and hand
to hand fighting Two member of the OG received additional training one as a radio
operator and the other as a medic Depending on their likely area of operation the OGs
received additional training such as ski training special parachute training or maritime
training80
77John Prados Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf (Chicago IL Elephant Paperbacks 1996) 16
78Art Frizzell ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg overviewhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
79Warner
80Frizzell
42
The first operational OGs were infiltrated from Algiers into Italy to work with the
local resistance and harass the German 90th Panzer Division Other OGs were parachuted
into Italy to help recover US prisoners as well as a blind drop into Italy to give the Italian
command the details of the Armistice and cease actions against the Allies As the
Germans withdrew some resistance elements were liberated and were ready to return to
the North to harass the withdrawing Germans By mid-1945 when the Germans
surrendered there were ten OG missions totaling 120 men in northern Italy81 For up to
two weeks the OGs and their resistance elements governed their areas until Allied
military governments arrived During this time OGs had to maintain order and receive
drops of humanitarian items for the local populous82
In 1943 another OG was stood up at the request of the Greek government in exile
to assist Greek guerrillas hiding in the mountains The mission for this OG which arrived
in Greece in April of 1944 was to delay and harass 80000 German troops withdrawing
from Greece The British also participated and provided the Raider Support Regiment83
The OG operations in Yugoslavia were one part of the British-led Allied efforts in
Yugoslavia The purpose for the Allied effort in Yugoslavia was conducting as many
offensive operations as possible against German troop concentrations The operational
base for this operation was a British garrison which included British Commandos a
Raider Support Regiment some naval and air support and a number of Yugoslavian
81Albert Materazzi ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwww ossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
82Ibid
83ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
43
resistance units all together totaling several thousand84 There are three categories of OG
missions in Yugoslavia mainland operations reconnaissance patrols and island
operations The mainland operations for OSS were unsuccessful and stopped after only
two failed attempts85
The island operations began in January of 1944 and were aimed at conducting
raids to inflict casualties on German garrisons and outposts These OG raiding parties
were at time large and combined efforts with other British and partisan units For
example the first mission against Hvar Island had 33 OGs 150 British Commandos and
75 partisans while others such a linear ambush on Korcula Island in April of 1944 had a
party of only seven OGs and a few partisans The size of this operation grew especially
when aimed at relieving pressure on Tito during German offensives One extremely large
operation included the British Commandos a British Infantry battalion the Raider
Support Regiment and an undisclosed number of partisans with OG units A and B
serving as flank security and liaison between the partisans and the British artillery The
mission succeeded in drawing the Germans from along the coastal regions as well as
another German division from the interior and is regarded as successful in relieving some
pressure from Titorsquos partisans86
84ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavian html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
85ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo available from httpwwwossog orgyugo-mainlandhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
86ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
44
The French OG group was originally composed of 200 volunteers The French
OGs were ready to deploy at the completion of their training in the fall of 1943 but they
were delayed because military leaders in conventional commands were reluctant to
deploy OGs for lack of understanding of their employment In an attempt to remedy this
misunderstanding the French OGs participated in field training exercises with airborne
units from Fort Bragg North Carolina in December of 1943 The French OGs were still
in limbo conducting environmental training in Virginia and Colorado when they
received orders attaching the groups to the Seventh Army in Algiers They arrived in
Algiers and were forced to wait once again until finally being assigned missions in
support of the Normandy invasion
There were two operational groups deployed into France the French OG and the
Norwegian OG The French OG flew from England nearly a month after the invasion
parachuted into France and operated north of Lyons The Norwegian OG flew from
Algiers and operated in southern France south of Lyons The total number of teams
deployed to France was twenty all with the missions to cut enemy lines of
communications attack vital enemy installations organize train and boost the morale
and efforts of local resistance elements and to gather intelligence for the advancing
Allied Armies
The Norwegian OG which was stationed and trained at Camp Hale Colorado
was made up of 100 officers and noncommissioned officers In December 1943 the
Norwegian OG was moved to England and was assigned to the OSS SO Headquarters
subordinate to the Scandinavian Section As was previously stated the Norwegian OGs
deployed to France and upon the liberation of France the Norwegian OG was reduced in
45
size As the Norwegian OG was being drawn down Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces
became concerned with 150000 German troops that were in northern Norway that
intelligence estimated would be moved south to defend Germany SHAEF wanted to
ensure that the Germans were forced to take sea routes so the OGrsquos mission would be to
disrupt the rail lines The commanding officer for the operation split the OG into two
units identified as NORSO I and NORSO II for Norwegian Special Operations87
NORSO I consisted of three officers and thirty enlisted soldiers and was the main
effort NORSO II consisted of one officer and eighteen enlisted soldiers and was to serve
as the reserve prepared to reinforce NORSO I if necessary or to complete a separate
mission The NORSO I target was identified as the Nordland Railway more specifically
the Grana Bridge plus lesser targets along the line The operation was plagued with
numerous difficulties from weather to deadly plane crashes however it did go on in less
than optimal conditions They successfully destroyed two and a half kilometers of track
disrupting the troop movements A month later they were told the Germans had
capitulated and NORSO I and II then participated in the disarmament procedures and
performed policing duties in the areas of German surrender88
Finally the Chinese OG mission was much different than what the OG missions
in Europe The mission entailed ldquothe formation training equipping and attachment of
87ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
88ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
46
American personnel for twenty Chinese Commandosrdquo89 This mission was generated
from an agreement that Chinese divisions led by veteran Americans would be more
effective than a regular Chinese division The agreement was made in January of 1945
and the nucleus of the OG personnel for this mission was the recently redeployed French
OG elements of the Norwegian OG and a third OG that had conducted amphibious
operations in Burma Additional officers and enlisted men were brought from
replacement centers in the US raising the total number of US personnel to 160 officers
and 230 enlisted all under the command of a lieutenant colonel Each Commando unit
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 8th 9th and 10th consisted of 154 Chinese and 19 Americans The
units were task organized into a headquarters three rifle sections a 60 millimeter mortar
section a light machine gun section and a demolition section In the initial plans it was
thought that there would be 3000 Chinese troops but due to physical readiness only a
quarter were available In the eighth week training cycle the Commandos showed major
improvements and for the Chinese being selected and becoming a Commando were
achievements to be proud of Seven of the Commando units conducted operations with
hostilities ending before the others could be stood up and trained90
Office of Strategic Services Summary
The OSS had gained valuable experience first from the British who taught
Donovanrsquos agency everything they had learned conducting clandestine and covert
operations in the first years of the war The partnership between SOE and OSS helped the
89John Hamblet ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo available from httpwwwossog orgchinahtml Internet accessed on 3 December 2005
90Ibid
47
OSS get through its fits and starts Donovanrsquos vision made the OSS an organization that
at the end of the war was an organization with an extremely effective strategic
intelligence and unconventional warfare capability Donovan had opened the Pandorarsquos
Box of irregular warfare for which the politicians and conventional military leaders were
not ready and contributed to the OSS being disbanded at the end of the war However
with the post-World War II environment looming it would not take very long before it
became evident that these types intelligence and unconventional warfare operations
would become the norm of covert activity during the Cold War
Demobilization of the different resistance groups throughout the world ran the
gambit of no demobilization and just turning the elements over to the reinstalled
government to collecting up arms and returning the resistance members back to their preshy
war lives Will Irwin provides a glimpse into the minds of the exile governments with
respect to resistance elements and their post-war status in this case the French ldquoSpecial
Force Headquarters received [a] Jedburgh message requesting a parachute drop of
arms and ammunition to the Paris resistance But de Gaullersquos London-based
commander of the [French Forces of the Interior] postponed the operation in hopes
that the arrival of Allied forces in the city would preclude the need to further arm the
Paris resistance because it was predominantly communistrdquo91 The fear at the time was
that the communist resistance would take over Paris with French commanders ldquoanxious
to install a provisional noncommunist government in the city as soon as it fellrdquo92 This is
91Irwin 145
92Ibid
48
exactly what they did after Paris was liberated ldquo[wasting] no time in occupying
government buildings and establishing political controlrdquo93
With respect to the analysis model the operational term that best describes the
OSS operations is unconventional warfare The operational signature was clandestine
hiding the act versus the operation in this case the support to resistance elements Like
the SOE the OSS operations were shaping operational supporting the advance of Allied
troops Finally the operational approach was combat with each element conducting
combat advising or in the case of the operational groups conducting their own operations
As with the SOE some resistance groups they received direct support in the way of
weapons and supplies but no combat advisory support The operational groups were
somewhat different in their application more commando-like and probably low-
visibility versus clandestine in nature Depending on their mission profile they may have
conducted unilateral direct action missions special reconnaissance or working with
resistance elements conducted unconventional warfare
The Central Intelligence Agency and Covert Paramilitary Operations
Introduction
At the conclusion of the war President Trumann who disliked Donovan and his
agency gave the order to disband OSS immediately The SO capability was dropped the
Research and Analysis Section went to the State Department and everything else went to
the War Department Because the Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy had saved SI
and X-2 this would constitute a peacetime intelligence service McCloy then named this
93Ibid 145-6
49
organization the Strategic Services Unit which was then confirmed by directive from the
Secretary of War Michael Warner explains that the Executive Order also directed the
Secretary of War to ldquoliquidaterdquo OSS activities that were not in line with national
interests Seeing that most of the work that Donovan had accomplished with respect to
developing an irregular warfare capability all of it was counter to the conventional-
minded military leaders who were happy to get rid of this threatening concept for war
that they considered ungentlemanly anyway
Within two years a new organization no longer in the War Department was
established by the President and Congress initially called the Central Intelligence Group
The CIG became the CIA with signing of the National Security Act of 194794 The 1947
Act gave the CIA the responsibility for coordinating all intelligence activities within the
US government including gathering analyzing and distributing intelligence products A
follow-on act in 1947 provided the CIA with ldquoconfidential fiscal and administrative
proceduresrdquo which was appropriate for the kind of work the CIA was conducting95
With the end of World War II the Cold War was beginning to emerge and
communist ideology was beginning to spread In this conflict in which both sides had
nuclear weapons they could threaten each other but could not resort to war as had been
known in the past Now the US and the USSR jockeyed for position and began to give
covert support to governments and indigenous resistance forces to influence countries
and regions in order to expand control One of the tools that had been looked upon by the
94Warner
95Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence (Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd) 2
50
regular military with such disdain supporting resistance forces would now play a major
role in the Cold War
Common sense told many politicians within the Truman administration that
covert actions should be the responsibility of the military Their argument seemed easy-shy
during World War II the military was responsible for covert and clandestine operations
such as deception psychological operations subversion sabotage ldquobehind-the-linesrdquo
unconventional warfare to support indigenous elements raids and even assassinations
However as was mentioned earlier the uniformed leaders within the Pentagon did not
want to get stuck with a controversial and unorthodox method of warfare and
enthusiastically gave it up to the CIA ldquo[JCS] apparently was fearful of what it perceived
to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in subrosa [sic] cloak-andshy
dagger activitiesrdquo96 Although the CIA retained control of the peace time operations they
had wanted not only the covert paramilitary activities during peacetime as stipulated by
National Security Council 102 in June 1948 but in wartime as well97
However in the early 1950s the DOD would once again develop a capability to
support indigenous resistance forces with the stipulation that it would only do this in
wartime leaving the peacetime operations to the CIA The Special Forces were born and
prepared for operations behind enemy lines in Germany should the Cold War turn hot It
is also notable that the term chosen by the CIA for support to insurgency was
96Bank 161
97Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Psychological and Unconventional Warfare 1941-1952 (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2002) 69
51
ldquoparamilitary operationsrdquo which John Prados defines as ldquoThe type of clandestine
operations that creates forces resembling regular military unitsrdquo98
The Three Disciplines
The ldquothree disciplinesrdquo within the CIA are intelligence collection and analysis
counterintelligence or counterespionage and covert action99 As William Daugherty
points out the first two operations collection and counterintelligence are meant to be
clandestine in other words ldquothe actual operations their participants and their results are
intended to remain hidden from viewrdquo100
Intelligence collection is the collection of raw intelligence data from any number
of sources including human and technical means This is the classic form of intelligence
work and the primary role of the CIA and the one that it is most famous for This raw
intelligence is then analyzed and is provided to the policy makers as ldquofinishedrdquo
intelligence upon which they can make decisions regarding threats or intentions of other
nations or non-nation actors
Counterintelligence or counterespionage functions to deny an advantage to its
adversaries This can be done in numerous ways such as turning foreign intelligence
agents to provide information on their fellow spies or ensuring adequate protections are
in place to protect sensitive information Both collection and counterintelligence share
many of the same techniques and requirements
98Prados 17
99Daugherty 9
100Ibid 12
52
The final discipline and the one that applies to paramilitary operations is covert
action Daugherty defined covert action simply as ldquoinfluencerdquo--influencing foreign
audience in the case of paramilitary operations by using covert military operations
preferably through a third-party actor101 Covert action results are visible but the
perpetrator cannot be identified Daugherty further highlights the application of this to the
US government by quoting the 1981 Executive Order 12333 ldquospecial activities [covert
operations] conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are
planned and executed so that the role of the United States government is not apparent or
acknowledged publiclyrdquo102 Thus with respect to paramilitary operations the indigenous
or surrogate force provides the ldquofrontrdquo to the operations and keeps the action or influence
from being directly attributable to the US As Daugherty explains ldquothe covert aspect is
that the lsquosponsorrsquo (ie the government behind the program) remains hidden leaving the
observers to believe that the actors are indigenous citizens acting entirely of their own
volition in events that are local in originrdquo103
Interestingly the first official definition of covert action was articulated by
President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in Executive Order (EO) 12333 The definition reads
[S]pecial activities conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly and functions in support of such activities but which are not intended to influence United States political processes public opinion policies or media and do not include diplomatic
101Ibid
102Daugherty 13
103Ibid
53
activities or the collection or production of intelligence and related support functions104
Other key points of Executive Order 12333 are that intelligence activities are not
primarily covert action covert actions must not be conducted within the US and ldquoit
explicitly and unambiguously assigns all peacetime covert action missions to the
CIArdquo105
The executive order has worked well enough that it was amended into a federal
statute in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991 The federal statute defines covert
action as
[A]n activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political economic or military conditions abroad where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly but does not include (1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence (2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities106
One of the confusing points of Executive Order 12333 is the use of the words special
activities versus covert action At first glance they seem similar but they do not have as
much in common as it would seem Daugherty explain that included in the special
activities rubric are
[P]rograms such as training of foreign military security and intelligence services [which] have been especially important to presidents not because the programs seek change in a hostile regime but because they work to preserve a friendly regime107
104Ibid
105Ibid 13-14
106Ibid 14
107Ibid 15
54
So now that these two definitions show that covert action and special activities are related
but not the same thing Unlike covert actions special activities ldquoare not intended to
produce any overt event to influence an audience but instead are operations that are
meant to remain clandestine in all aspectsrdquo108 With respect to this thesis paramilitary
operations are thus covert unconventional warfare operations to influence such as
overthrowing a government and special activities are clandestine foreign internal defense
operations which could be used when a foreign government did not want overt US
support and training
Central Intelligence Agency Versus Department of Defense Covert Action Capability
Since the end of World War II the US military has not had the lead role in any
covert action programs aimed at supporting indigenous forces The military supported
CIA covert operations at times such as providing training teams for operations
According to Bob Woodward Special Forces soldiers accompanied CIA paramilitary
operatives into Northern Iraq before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom which provides
an example of once easily definable peace or war lines of separation becoming harder to
discern109
William Daugherty provides a list of reasons why DOD has not been able to
conduct peacetime covert operations
DOD does not possess nor has it ever possessed the statutory authority to conduct classic covert action except
108Ibid 16
109Bob Woodward Plan of Attack (New York NY Simon and Schuster 2004) 208-209
55
During a war formally declared by Congress
During any period covered by a report to Congress under the War Powers Act
When DOD is specifically tasked by the President because it is determined that the military is more likely to achieve particular objectives
CIA already has existing infrastructure to conduct covert actions such as its fleet of civilian-registered aircraft and maritime vessels
CIA already has recruited agents third-country nationals to carry out the required operational and support activities in foreign countries
DOD covert action forces would either have to give up protection of their Geneva Convention rights or any covert actions that were discovered they could be considered an act of war
CIA already has a presence in many of the 190 sovereign nations in the world which give them long operational reach support and clandestine infrastructure
CIA has almost instantaneous reaction or response time in any crisis situation to include the capability to travel in alias under civilian cover and with non-US travel documents
CIA has a core of career covert action specialists in each of the four broad categories of covert action ndash propaganda political action paramilitary and information warfare110
The obvious advantages currently go to the CIA however these same capabilities could
be developed within DOD with help of the CIA who is reluctant to share any of their
ldquotoysrdquo as Daugherty alludes to throughout his book
Covert Central Intelligence Agency Operations
CIA covert operations were widespread throughout the Cold War While some of
these programs remain classified there are a few notable paramilitary actions and special
110Daugherty 62-69
56
activities that provide an interesting comparison to Special Forces operations during this
same period As William Daugherty points out
From Trumanrsquos time through the Nixon years covert action programs served only two purposes they were intended either to stop the spread of Communism to countries that were not under the Soviet thumb by strengthening or supporting whatever regimes were in power or to weaken Communist or Communist-supported government by lsquoeroding their internal supportrsquo111
From the Nixon years on covert actions began to be used against non-Communist
targets
Eastern Europe 1949-1956
With the Soviet occupation of the Eastern European satellite nations the US and
Britain began a subversion campaign almost immediately The Ukraine was the first
country the MI6 and CIA actively sought to raise anti-Soviet resistance capabilities In
1945 MI6 was able to reestablish contact with the leader of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists When the State Department agreed to proceed with support the
mission was given to the foreign intelligence bureau and the Office of Policy
Coordination responsible for paramilitary operations112
The Office of Policy Coordination started numerous training camps in West
Germany to train Eastern eacutemigreacutes from the Soviet Union and Ukraine The first group of
agents was infiltrated into western Ukraine by parachute in 1949 The long-term plan was
to infiltrate 2000 agents throughout the Eastern Bloc countries The mission of the agents
111Ibid 124
112Peter Harclerode Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden (London Cassell and Company 2001) 5-7
57
was to report Soviet preparations for offensive operations against the west and support
resistance organizations to disrupt any Soviet operations against the west113
The CIA also infiltrated agents into Lithuania which in 1944 had 30000
resistance members of the group the ldquoForest Brotherhoodrdquo Latvia was thought to have
14000 well-armed fighters114 However none of these operations was able to keep an
agent alive for any period of time after his infiltration most succumbing to immediate
arrest or death For the CIA and Secret Intelligence Service no goals had been reached
despite a large expenditure of money and resources Daugherty offers these observations
on why these operations failed
[U]nrealistic goal of lsquorolling backrsquo Communist domination organizers mistakenly assumed that eacutemigreacute groups could be made secure from Soviet penetrations [and] Soviet military and intelligence units conducted formidable counter-insurgency operations in the target countries relentlessly hunting down the eacutemigreacute guerilla force Last these operations were betrayed by [a] KGB double agent115
Albania offered another opportunity for use of unconventional warfare this time
aimed at the regime of Enver Hoxha ldquothe dictator and secretary-general of the Albanian
Communist Partyrdquo116 The goal of this combined British and US effort as Peter
Harclerode explains ldquowas to wrest the country from the Sovietrsquosand assist the
establishment of a democratic pro-Western governmentrdquo117 The concept for this
113Ibid
114Ibid 21
115Daugherty 127
116Harclerode 35
117Ibid
58
operation was to instigate an uprising to overthrow Enver Hoxha with operations taking
place from 1949 to 1954 For this operation 250 Albanians were recruited by the exiled
Albanian National Council which would comprise Company 4000 and led by an
American officer Three platoons were raised and trained in varying levels of guerrilla
warfare and then parachuted into Albania Although able to infiltrate members of the
company most were quickly captured or killed by the effective internal security
apparatus of the Hoxha regime By August of 1954 it was decided to disband Company
4000 and dismantle the training school located in Western Germany The remaining
recruits were demobilized and then were dispersed throughout the US Britain and other
locations A CIA officer is quoted by Peter Harclerode providing significant insight into
the lessons learned from this operation
The Albanian operation was the first and only attempt by Washington to unseat a Communist regime within the Soviet orbit by paramilitary means It taught a clear lesson to the war planners Even a weak regime could not be overthrown by covert paramilitary means alone118
The activities against the Soviet Union and its satellite states in the early years of
the Cold War provide and interesting beginning to post-World War II unconventional
warfare All of these efforts were plainly unconventional warfare aimed at using
resistance organizations to disrupt of Soviet expansion and if war broke out to act as
shaping operations forcing the commitment of Soviet combat power to rear area security
These operations were all indirect using training areas in third-party countries and then
infiltrating these elements into the target country unilaterally with the radio being the
only connection to their CIA handlers
118Ibid 71
59
Korea
Korea provides a great example of two simultaneous unconventional warfare
efforts one by the CIA with a cover name of Joint Advisory Commission Korea and
other efforts by of conventional military officers with the most prominent effort being
that assigned to the Guerrilla Division of the 8240th Army Unit The conventional
military cadres had little or no formal unconventional warfare training or experiences119
These efforts were not coordinated until a year into the conflict when the Far East
Command which in 1953 would be redesignated as United Nations Partisan Infantry
Korea established the Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea to
synchronize these unconventional warfare efforts120 Before the establishment of the
Combined Command Reconnaissance Activities-Korea a single officer Colonel John
McGee who had worked with the Filipino guerrillas in World War II was assigned to the
Far East Command G-3 Operations as the sole member of the Miscellaneous Division
His initial task was ldquoto prepare a staff study on the possibilities of conducting guerrilla
operations against the North Koreans using some of the refugees from the northrdquo121
The CIArsquos mission was to ldquostep up pressure on the Chinese Communists by
supporting guerrilla movements on the mainland of China especially along lines of
communicationsrdquo122 The CIA successfully established a network of covert intelligence
119Ibid 179 and Col Ben S Malcom (ret) and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea (Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996) xi
120Malcom and Martz 14-15 27
121Ibid 15
122Major General (ret) John K Singlaub Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century (New York NY Summit Books 1991) 181
60
bases along the North Korean coast from which Korean agents could be dispatched
However the operation was never able to establish any significant resistance networks
The 8420th was able to establish a substantial resistance effort primarily due to
location and a large refugee population of willing supporters but the overall effects are
arguable since the resistance was rewarded for their actions based on their own reports
truthful or not Part of the operational constraints was that no American could operate in
North Korea due to the political risks which made it difficult for the American cadres to
exploit the efforts of the resistance123 In some cases there were documented successes
by American advisors such as then 1st Lieutenant Ben Malcolm that had special
permission or ldquoclandestinelyrdquo went ashore not having the consent of their higher
headquarters
The motivation for much of the resistance effort was the belief that the United
Nations would conduct a counteroffensive against the Chinese As Ben Malcolm
explains the assumptions being that when the offensive happened ldquothe partisans would
prove invaluable at their harassment and interdiction of enemy forces It was classic
unconventional warfare strategy using the partisans as an auxiliary to conventional
forces on the attack helping to shape the battlefieldrdquo124 An example of the effectiveness
of some of these units such as the 8086th Army unit which in less than a year claimed to
ldquohave conducted 710 operations killed 9095 and wounded 4802 and captured 385rdquo
123Ibid 183
124Malcom and Martz 17 61
and in the process destroyed thirty-seven road bridges twelve railway bridges and
twelve tunnels and seven hundred weaponsrdquo125
Demobilization of the partisan forces was called Operation Quicksilver and called
for the ldquointegration of the partisans into [Republic of Korea] unitsrdquo126 As Ben Malcolm
explains ldquoQuicksilver called for those partisans with at least two years of service to be
honorably discharged and given their uniforms mess gear four blankets two hundred
pounds of rice and transportation to their city of choice in South Koreardquo127 Those opting
to enlist for two years got the same incentives plus an extra one hundred pounds of rice
For their transfer from American to South Korean control the US only required them to
ldquoturn in their weapon and for some unexplained reason their canteen cuprdquo128 However
less than half of the 22000 partisans disappeared in a year and as Ben Malcolm
surmises some went south and some ostensibly went north with some elements still
requesting support by radio ldquowell after the armistice was signedrdquo129
The unconventional warfare operation in Korea can be summarized as covert
shaping operations aimed at disrupting the Chinese forces in support of the larger United
Nations mission thus these operations were shaping operations With regards to the
operational approach of these operations they are mostly direct support with only a few
examples of sanctioned combat advisory support
125Ibid 26
126Ibid 190
127Ibid 190-1
128Ibid 191
129Ibid
62
Tibet
In the case of Tibet five years elapsed between the beginning of the Chinese
invasion and the Tibetan uprising in 1956 President Eisenhower authorized covert
support to the unorganized ldquoTibetan internal resistance movementrdquo130 The intended
effect was ldquoto confront thwart or harassrdquo the Chinese Communist government The
program began in 1956 and ended by President Richard Nixon thirteen years later in
1969131 While eventually unsuccessful certain aspects of this covert action are
intriguing Beginning in December of 1956 an operation codenamed ST CIRCUS
commenced with a small groups of handpicked Tibetan resistance members were
exfiltrated out of the country by the CIA and taken to different training bases in the
Pacific and later America132 As Peter Harclerode explains
At a training camp established by the CIA the six Tibetans underwent four and a half months of extensive instruction in guerrilla warfare In addition to small arms they trained in the use of light support weapons including the 57mm recoilless rifle and 60mm mortar and well schooled in tactics fieldcraft map-reading navigation demolitions mine-laying sabotage booby traps and first aid They also received instruction on in intelligence-gathering skills and in [long range encrypted communications]133
These teams also learned to parachute and establish drop zones for receiving personnel
and equipment134 These teams were then parachuted back into Tibet to organize
130Daugherty 144
131Ibid
132Harclerode 348-9
133Ibid 350
134Ibid
63
resistance forces Although the program generated mixed results the concept was a
proven means of conducting indirect support
The program was shut down in 1974 after relations with China had warmed
during the Nixon administrations The Tibetans were left feeling ldquodiscarded by the
United States which no longer needed them now that they had served their purposerdquo135
There was no demobilization instead the US ldquoterminatedrdquo support not only paramilitary
assistance but political recognitions and support in the United Nations and the financial
support to the exiled government136
This indirect unconventional warfare program was also covert and unique in that
the majority of the training took place in the continental US at different locations but all
under extreme secrecy This program was a strategic shaping operation aimed at
indirectly influencing China
Cuba
Almost immediately after President Kennedy entered the White House in January
of 1961 he authorized the CIA to begin to conduct covert operations against the Castro
Government One element of this extensive covert action program that included
psychological operations and sabotage was a paramilitary effort This paramilitary
infamously known as the ldquoBay of Pigsrdquo would end in tragedy and failure The plan was
135Ibid 393
136Ibid
64
to conduct an invasion of Cuba using exiled Cuban resistance members and overthrow
Castro The training for this operation took place in a Guatemala a third-party country137
Regardless of the failures of this operation it does provide an interesting
unconventional warfare case study for analysis With respect to the operational signature
it may have begun as a covert operation but the supporting efforts such as ldquoair strikes
from US Navy and Marine squadrons on nearby aircraft carriersrdquo would have definitely
changed the signature and thus the deniability of US involvement As to whether this was
a decisive or shaping operation its failure masks the true intent--a decisive overthrow of
Castro This operation began as an indirect unconventional warfare effort with training
conducted in a third party country and arms and equipment provided by the CIA Had
the air support been provided as promised then this operation would have taken on a
direct or combat role depending on the level of naval air involvement While this was a
definite covert action gone bad operation it still provides a great lesson in the strengths
and weaknesses of unconventional warfare
Laos
The operation in Laos in the 1950rsquos and 1960rsquos is often incorrectly identified as
unconventional warfare when in fact it is more correctly a covert action in this case a
special activity to increase the Laotian government ability of defeating internal and
external threats138 Richard L Holm a former CIA officer describes the situation in
Laos ldquoLao communist forces known as the Pathet Lao (PL) were challenging the
137Daugherty 155
138Major Dean S Newman ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
65
governmentrsquos Royal Lao Army (FAR) throughout the country Although badly organized
and poorly trained and equipped the PL was bolstered by support from North Vietnam
whose units were call the VC (Vietnamese Communists)rdquo139 As Richard Holm explains
ldquoThe CIArsquos paramilitary efforts in Laos were divided roughly along geographic linesrdquo
north central and southern Laos and involved working with different tribal and ethnic
groupsrdquo140 Although the Pathet Lao threat to the Laotian government for the US
government greater concern was the North Vietnamese use of eastern Laos to support its
efforts in South Vietnam
The initial programs were under the auspices of the US Agency for International
Development and its advisors before becoming a covert action to ldquobolsterrdquo the Laotian
government141 Special Forces were also involved in White Star initially under the
command of Lieutenant Colonel ldquoBullrdquo Simons legendary for leading Son Tay Raid--the
prisoner-of-war rescue mission--some ten years later142 In the original program twelve
teams were under the auspices of the Agency for International Development Project
Evaluation Office later renamed the Military Assistance Advisory Group The effort was
initially called Operation Ambidextrous later to become Operation White Star143
139Richard L Holms ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 available from httpwwwodcigov csistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet accessed on 18 June 2005
140Ibid
141Ibid
142Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo available from httpwwwspecialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet accessed on 22 January 2006
143Ibid
66
The program ended in earnest in July of 1962 the Geneva negotiations on Laos
were signed stipulating that all foreign military personnel had to withdraw from Laos
The White Star advisors left the country as required while less than fifty of an estimated
10000 North Vietnamese soldiers passed through international observer checkpoints144
The Laotians were not demobilized but continued to receive covert support from the
CIA However with the end of the Vietnam war all US efforts in Laos ended and the
tribes who continued to fight were decimated many becoming refugees in Thailand
The operations in Laos were covert foreign internal defense shaping operations in
the larger context of the growing problems in South Vietnam However the White Star
operation was never able to successfully deny eastern Laos to the North Vietnamese It is
arguable whether the operational approach was combat or direct support but based on the
fact that Special Forcesrsquo suffered one killed-in-action and four missing in action during
this operation there were obviously combat advisor taking place145
Vietnam
In early 1961 President Kennedy tasked the CIA with initiating covert operations
against North Vietnam wanting to ldquoturn the heat up on Hanoi and do to them what they
were doing to the US ally in South Vietnamrdquo146 The real problem was that putting agents
and developing resistance forces in the North was that it was a denied area which some
144Charles M Simpson Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years (Novato CA Presidio Press 1983) 90
145Specialoperationcom
146Richard H Shultz Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi (New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999) xiii
67
considered to be a tougher environment than the Soviet Union China East Germany and
North Korea147 Over the next two years the President grew increasingly impatient with
CIA operations in North Vietnam and in 1963 turned over a majority of the programs to
military control in what was called ldquoOperation Switchbackrdquo This was a world-wide
replacement of CIA leadership of clandestine paramilitary operationsrdquo148
While there were many CIA programs developed a majority were turned over to
the military to run early in 1963 However one program that was an interagency effort to
defeat the insurgency called the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development
Support (CORDS) was established in 1967 Later to the ldquoRevolutionaryrdquo would be
changed to ldquoRuralrdquo but the programs goals did not--pacification of South Vietnamese
rural areas149 The CIArsquos role in CORDS was what initially was known as the
Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program later to be renamed Phoenix150 The
aim of this portion of Phoenix was to identify and neutralize the Viet Cong insurgent
underground organizational infrastructure in the rural towns and villages The Phoenix
programs emphasized four areas to attack the Viet Cong infrastructure (VCI) district
intelligence centers to identify VCI neutralize verified members of the VCI by either
capturing killing or conversion established rules for prosecuting VCI and placed the
147Ibid
148Simpson 138
149Major Ross Coffey ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
150Dale Andrade and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
68
emphasis of these efforts on local militias and police instead of the military In a four
year period beginning in 1968 Phoenix neutralized 81740 Viet Cong
The operations in North Vietnam proved that it is difficult to create a resistance or
insurgency from scratch especially in a denied area The programs were covert indirect
unconventional warfare operations with the goal of shaping the strategic environment
The Phoenix program was a low-visibility counterinsurgency program thus a foreign
internal defense It also was a shaping operation for the larger objective of CORDS
pacification plan and its operational approach was to empower local militias and police
so it was direct support
Nicaragua
The covert actions Finding for Nicaragua were signed by President Carter within
two weeks of the Sandinistas National Liberation Front rise to power in 1979151
However Carterrsquos Finding entailed nonlethal covert action only It was not until
December of 1981 that President Reagan would signed a Finding authorizing ldquocovert
funding and assistance for the anti-Sandinista rebelsrdquo better known as the Contras152
The initial funds and authorities provided funds to Argentina ldquoto organize and train a
five-hundred-man anti-Sandinistas unit for deployment in the Central American region
but with a proviso that the funds could not be utilized to overthrow the Nicaraguan
governmentrdquo153
151Daugherty 190
152Ibid 203
153Ibid 204
69
By the end of the program a second Finding authorized operations in Nicaragua
ldquocosting close to $100 million per year and the five-hundred-member Argentine unit was
transformed into a multi-thousand Nicaraguan rebel forcerdquo154 As Lynn Horton
highlights
[I]t is possible that 30000 or more Nicaraguans fought at some point with antigovernment forces making the contras [sic] one of the largest armed mobilizations of peasants in contemporary Latin American history In addition thousands more peasants participated in civilian collaborator networks that provided contra [sic] troops with food shelter and vital military information155
Despite the controversy in the US with the program the war ended in 1990 after the
Sandinistas National Liberation Front was defeated in the election that year The forces
were not demobilized by the US with some reverting to insurgency as necessary over the
next decade This controversial but successful program was a covert unconventional
warfare operation that ended up being a decisive operation through indirect support from
the different agencies in the US government
Afghanistan and the Soviets
The US had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of a Soviet-supported third-
world country Vietnam When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the Carter administration
saw an opportunity to return the favor As President Carterrsquos National Security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested ldquoWe now have the opportunity of giving the USSR its
Vietnamrdquo156 The Carter administration had already started covert operations months
154Ibid
155Lynn Horton Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 (Athens GA Ohio University 1998) xii
156Daugherty 189
70
before the Soviet invasion including a propaganda campaign indirect financial aid to
insurgents direct financial assistance to Afghan eacutemigreacute groups lethal and nonlethal aid
and offered training and support157 Afghanistan would prove to be the largest CIA
operation in history and one of the most successful As Anthony Joes highlights CIArsquos
success ldquoIt was perhaps the most satisfying experience the Americans ever had with
guerrilla warfarerdquo158
The Afghan mujahideen were much weaker militarily and politically than the
Vietnamese had been and they were facing a superpower that was not squeamish about
using brutal tactics against insurgents The other element that the mujahideen lacked was
unity of command and effort which was a huge obstacle but was partly due to the tribal
and warlord nature of the society
The amount of money the US expended was initially relatively small around 80
million dollars a year but this jumped to 470 million dollars a year in 1986 and to 700
million dollars by 1988159 The only major obstacle that the CIA faced was in its dealing
with the Pakistani intelligence service that favored four Afghan groups and ensured that
the majority of weapons over 70 percent were given to these groups However the
Pakistani Intelligence Service took an active roll in training and supporting the Afghans
to include numerous schools which trained over 80000 mujahideen by 1988160 The
157Ibid 188-189
158Anthony James Joes America and Guerrilla Warfare (Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000) 279
159Ibid 310
160Harclerode 536
71
British were also very active throughout Afghanistan supporting the CIA efforts161 The
CIA also took advantage of the situation and was able to capture or recover some of the
Sovietrsquos premiere equipment including a Mi-24 attack helicopter162 The real coup was
the introduction of the Stinger missile which accounted for nearly 500 aircraft in 1987163
By 1988 the situation was untenable for the Soviets they had lost domestic support for
the war The Afghan mujahideen had succeeded in defeating the Soviets Once again the
US did not demobilize these elements although some effort was made to track the usage
of Stingers and to have unused Stingers turned back in
The efforts in Afghanistan provide a good example of coalition unconventional
warfare with numerous nations providing some type of support to the covert efforts
Afghanistan was an operational and strategic decisive operation removing the Soviets
from Afghanistan but also from the world scene leading up to the fall of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War The operational approach varied depending on the
nation some providing indirect monetary and political recognition of the effort to other
efforts that were direct support in nature providing training and sanctuary outside the
borders of Afghanistan Finally there were some combat advisory efforts by the US
Pakistan India China and other countries from the Middle East in the form of
intelligence agents and paramilitary advisors164
161Ibid 540
162Ibid 543-544
163Joes 311
164Harclerode 512
72
Central Intelligence Agency Summary
After a rough Post-World War II period the CIA proved to be a world class
intelligence organization From the first British visionaries who saw the potential of
unconventional warfare it has been proven time and again to be a viable method of
warfare It has been used to defeat the US and the Soviets and it continues to haunt the
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan Based on recent experience as a nation covert
paramilitary operations are now proven foreign policy tools
The Special Forces Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Doctrinal Developments
In 1951 Lieutenant Colonels Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann were given the
charter to develop a DOD unconventional warfare capability by then chief of the Army
Psychological Warfare Brigadier General Robert McClure Both men understood
unconventional warfare due to their first-hand experiences in World War II working with
indigenous resistance organizations Lieutenant Colonel Bank was an OSS veteran
having supported resistance groups in France as a member of a Jedburgh team and later
in China165 Lieutenant Colonel Volkmann had organized the US Forces in the
Philippines--Northern Luzon ldquoone of the largest and best organized guerrilla operations
on Luzonrdquo166 He had also written the first Army Field Manual (FM) on guerrilla warfare
FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla [sic] Warfare that was published just
165Bank 13
166Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet accessed on 3 May 2006
73
as he and Bank began to develop the concepts for unconventional warfare and Special
Forces167
The combined experiences of Bank and Volckmann ran the gambit of
unconventional warfare one conducted clandestine operations in an environment where
he could speak the language and blend in while the other in a environment that he could
not blend into one trained in clandestine unconventional warfare the other with no
formal unconventional warfare training one in a combination urban and rural
environment the other in a rural jungle one as a member of a highly trained team the
other as part of an ad hoc organization and one conducted unconventional warfare
operation of generally short duration the other conducted long-term unconventional
warfare and finally one had experience using unconventional warfare to support
conventional operations while the other had experience conducting unconventional
warfare operations as the only effort until late in the war
However even with all of their experiences their most difficult task was to battle
conventional mindsets such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff that disliked the idea of
unconventional warfare As Bank explained ldquoIt apparently was fearful of what it
perceived to be the stigma of having the military accused of engaging in sub-rosa cloak-
and-dagger activities in the event of disclosurerdquo168 This contrasted to the new CIA that
wanted sole responsibility for unconventional warfare not just covert paramilitary
activities during peacetime as stipulated by National Security Council 102 in June
167Lieutenant Colonel Russell Volckmann US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare (Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951)
168Bank 161
74
1948169 Bank and Volckmann set out to establish an organization that could conduct UW
based on an operational element later the Operational Detachment Alpha which they
envisioned as ldquoa cadre that would mushroom into a huge guerrilla force actually a
phantom armyrdquo170
The same confusion that surrounds unconventional warfare today also haunted
Bank and Volkmann as Bank explains
Neither of us liked the fact that so much terminology was being bandied around concerning behind-the-lines operations The terms unconventional warfare clandestine operations unorthodox warfare and special operations were being used interchangeably171
When they refined the operational term they called it Special Forces Operations which
had a sole purpose of supporting resistance movements The operational concept
envisioned by Bank and Volckmann was
to infiltrate by air sea or land deep into enemy-controlled territory and to stay organize equip train control and direct the indigenous potential in the conduct of Special Forces Operations Special Forces Operations were defined as the organization of resistance movements and operation of their component networks conduct of guerrilla warfare field intelligence gathering espionage sabotage subversion and escape and evasion activitiesrdquo172
The focus on organizing resistance movements in this concept was Bank and Volkmannrsquos
attempt to separate Ranger-style missions from what they envisioned as Special Forces
missions
169Alfred H Paddock Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins (Washington DC National Defense University 1982) 69
170Bank 166
171Ibid
172Ibid 179
75
This was important too since Bank and Volkmann had been under pressure from
the beginning to combine these two forces together This combined unit was supposed to
conduct all aspects of behind the line operations from unilateral raids and sabotage to
support to guerrilla movements Bank explains the differences ldquoThe Rangers were
strictly short-term shallow-penetration units whereas [Office of Strategic Services] had
long term much more complex strategic capabilitiesrdquo173 The Special Forces Operations
concept was meant to separate the purposes of Special Forces and Rangers Over the next
fifty years Special Forces added many of the missions which Bank and Volkmann fought
so hard to keep from the Special Forces charter However in times of budget cuts and
force reductions Special Forces had to adapt to the times to maintain the force and
relevance Vietnam and the Cold War would provide the impetus for developing new
capabilities that were not in the original charter developed by Bank and Volckmann
In the 1960rsquos as the Cold War began to be fought by communist-backed
revolutionists insurgents and guerrillas President Kennedy called upon the men who
trained to fight as guerrillas to now fight against these threats in an effort to contain
communist expansion in other words ldquofight fire with firerdquo President Kennedy set out in
earnest in the early 1960rsquos through a series of letters to the Army to get the military as a
whole to change the conventionally-bound military mindset to adapt to this new type of
political-insurgent warfare Thomas K Adams explains the reaction of the conventional
military to the request of the President
President Kennedy called for ldquoa wholly new kind of strategy a wholly different kind of force and therefore a new and different kind of military trainingrdquo What he got was business as usual but with [unconventional warfare] trimmings
173Ibid 144
76
regardless of the wrapper the contents of the package remained conventional warfare Describing the Armyrsquos reaction to Kennedyrsquos program Maxwell Taylor remembered feeling that ldquoall this dust coming out of the White House really isnrsquot necessaryrdquo It was ldquosomething we have to satisfy but not much heart went into [the] workrdquo He sounded a long standing theme when he added that he felt the Special Forces were not doing anything that ldquoany well-trained unitrsquo couldnrsquot dordquo174
Thomas Adams also noted as a result of these letters what occurred was ldquoan attempt to
fit the existing military structure to the counterinsurgency problemrdquo175 There were
numerous studies and conferences on topics such as special warfare counterinsurgency
and guerrilla operations during this time However the outcome of all these studies was a
limited counterinsurgency capability based on conventional light infantry tactics with no
change in understanding of the complex cultural and political elements of the problem176
In the 1960s despite the problems with the conventional military establishment
accepting its role in counterinsurgency Special Forces proved highly successful in
fighting insurgencies and guerrillas throughout the world In Vietnam for example
Special Forces programs such as the Civilian Irregular Defense Group and Mobile Strike
Forces were highly successful operations using indigenous or surrogate forces the
Montagnards and Chinese Nungs respectively Doctrine began to catch up to the
counterinsurgency actions with subtle shifts in 1965 to include discussions of Special
Forcesrsquo roles in counterinsurgency in FM 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques
and FM 31-21 Special Forces Operations
174Thomas K Adams US Special Operations in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare (Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998) 70
175Ibid 73 176Ibid
77
With the addition of counterinsurgency in these manuals the confusion between
counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare began with a mixing of terms One such
example is found in the 1961 FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces
Operations in which a new command structure is introduced called the Joint
Unconventional Warfare Task Force This task force would provide command and
control to operational elements within the theater of operations177 This headquarters
concept was put into practice in 1964 when the Military Assistance Command Vietnam-
Studies and Observation Group was created as a joint unconventional warfare task force
As Thomas K Adams explains that this Studies and Observation group was ldquoresponsible
for special operations in Burma Cambodia Laos North and South Vietnam and border
areas of Chinardquo178 In hindsight including unconventional warfare in the task force name
was probably a misnomer since all of the operations encompassed in the region were
either overt or covert foreign internal defense and special reconnaissance and to a lesser
extent direct action The only unconventional warfare operations during this period were
the failed attempts to establish and support a resistance force in North Vietnam179
In the 1963 version of FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces a new
counterinsurgency unit called the Special Action Force appears180 The Special Action
Force ldquois a specially-trained area-oriented partially language-qualified ready force
177Department of the Army FM 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1961) 14
178Adams 118 179Shultz 3
180Department of the Army FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 1963) 1
78
available to the commander of a unified command for the support of cold limited and
general war operationsrdquo181 This Force is build specifically around a Special Forces group
with the mission of ldquoproviding training operational advise and assistance to indigenous
forcesrdquo182 The manual suggested that the Special Action Force be task organized with
ldquocivil affairs psychological warfare engineers medical intelligence military police and
Army Security Agency detachmentrdquo183 Another interesting feature of this organization
as explained in the FM 31-22 is the conventional army brigade-sized backup force As
the manual describes ldquoBrigade-size backup forces are area oriented and designed to back
up a particular [Special Action Force] These forces are committed to an operational area
when the capabilities of the [Special Action Force] have been exceededrdquo184
Charles Simpson III explains the real world application of the Special Action
Forces concept
Four Special Action Forces came into being one on Okinawa built around the 1st Special Forces Group for the Far East (SAFASIA) one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America one in Panama around the 8th Special Forces Group for Latin America and tow at Fort Bragg organized around the new 3rd and 6th Groups for Africa and the Middle East In Europe the 10th Special Forces Grouphellipassumed functions much like those of the large [Special Action Forces] but without their resources185
181Ibid 16
182Ibid 20
183Ibid 16
184Ibid 42
185Simpson 69
79
By 1972 the Special Action Force concept had ended with no group ever fully deployed
instead being piecemealed throughout the theaters186 One of the major shortcomings of
the program was the fact that a Special Action Force had to be requested by the
ambassador which was unlikely to be supported by the rest of the country team which
had civilian capabilities that were similar to the SAF This interagency rivalry
significantly reduced the effectiveness and usefulness of the Special Action Force
concept and led to the concepts demise187
A doctrinal shift occurred with the 1969 publication of FM 31-21 Special Forces
Operations which addressed new missions of support for stability operations and
unilateral operations--the precursors of foreign internal defense direct action personnel
recovery strategic or special reconnaissance This manual is still focused heavily on
unconventional warfare with this topic covered in the first nine of eleven chapters
however one chapter devoted to support for stability operations and one to covering the
employment of Special Forces ldquoin additional military operationsrdquo Stability operations in
this manual are defined as
internal defense and internal development operations and assistance provided by the armed forces to maintain restore or establish a climate of order within which responsible government can function effectively and without which progress cannot be achieved188
It also clarifies that unconventional warfare doctrine is ldquonot entirely applicable to overt
stability operationsrdquo and stipulates that
186Adams 100 187Simpson 68-9
188FM 31-21 10-1
80
Many [unconventional warfare] tactics and techniques such as those employed to gain the support of the local population to establish intelligence nets and to conduct tactical operations such as raids and ambushes may be adapted to stability operations189
The manual also describes ldquoadditional military operationsrdquo as ldquounilateral deep
penetrations to conduct reconnaissance surveillance and target acquisition attack
critical strategic targets recovery of friendly personnel in remote or hostile areas and
training of US andor allied personnel in Special Forces operational tactics and
techniquesrdquo190 Also of note is the definition of direct action mission ldquoOvert or
clandestine operations in hostile or denied areas which are conducted by US
[unconventional warfare] forces rather than by US conventional forces or through US
direction of indigenous forcesrdquo191 This is interesting because it denotes difference
between the unilateral direct operations and the use of indigenous forces
Unconventional warfare would continue to be the primary operation and bases for
all the Special Forces field manuals throughout the 1970s Foreign internal defense
emerged in the mid-1970s in Special Forces doctrinal manuals The definition of foreign
internal defense in the 1978 Special Text 31-201 Special Forces Operations is directly
out of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Publication 1 and is defined as the ldquoparticipation by
civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by
another government to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and
189Ibid
190Ibid 11-1
191Ibid Glossary 1
81
insurgencyrdquo192 It also describes a Special Action Force-type organization based once
again on a Special Forces group augmented with ldquohighly specialized skills need to assist
a host country to develop internal defenserdquo193 This special text notes that a augmented
Special Forces group can train advise and assist the host countryrsquos regular or
paramilitary forces as well as compliment or expand the US security assistance efforts of
the country team for short periods of time194
Between late 1970 and 1990 the changes in Special Forces doctrine were not
captured in writing The 1990 publication of FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces
Operations superseded the last FM 31-20 from 1977195 This new manual detailed eight
Special Forces missions and activities unconventional warfare foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism collateral activities and other
special operations activities196 While the definition of unconventional warfare is exactly
the same as today it is still obvious that unconventional warfare is directly related to
ldquoinsurgency or other armed resistance movementsrdquo197 Of note this manual begins to
address the change in insurgent environments from rural based to urban based In
192US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations (Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978) A-1
193Ibid
194Ibid
195Department of the Army FM 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 20 April 1990) Cover
196Ibid Index
197Ibid 3-2
82
response the manual explains that ldquoglobal urbanization dictates a shift in emphasis from
rural [guerrilla warfare] to all aspects of clandestine resistancerdquo198 This is the first time
in the doctrinal manuals that clandestine operations are discussed with regards to the
urbanization of insurgency
The Gulf War revitalized Special Forces having conducted numerous operations
employing special reconnaissance and coalition support Like many missions coalition
support was a necessary mission with only a couple of options for manning this force-shy
Special Forces was the most qualified In a misguided attempt to keep unconventional
warfare current to the times coalition support operations were added to unconventional
warfare This idea was further explained in the June 2001 FM 3-0520 Special Forces
Operations ldquoThe conventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and
led in varying degrees by SF and US allies represents the newest evolution of UW-related
surrogate forcesrdquo199 The argument could be made that elements of the 10th Special
Forces Group conducted unconventional warfare using Kuwaiti military units that had
fled the Iraqi invasion Although the actual operational impact was small due to the small
size of the ldquofreerdquo Kuwaiti force the civil-political impact of having a Kuwaiti unit help in
liberating its country was huge200 The use of surrogates or ldquosomeone who takes the
place of or acts for anotherrdquo was first addressed in the 1990 version of FM 31-20 in
198Ibid
199FM 3-0520 2-6
200Susan L Marquis Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces (Washington DC Brookings Institute Press 1997) 234
83
response to coalition warfare201 The 2001 FM 3-0520 tries to explain this concept to
prove coalition support is a valid unconventional warfare operation ldquoFrom a US point of
view these coalition forces and resources are surrogates and act as substitutes for US
troops and resources reducing US commitmentldquo202 The manual also highlights that
ldquoconventional coalition forces trained organized equipped advised and led in varying
degrees by SF and US allies represent the newest evolution in UW-related surrogate
forcesrdquo203
After the Gulf War as evidenced by the emphasis that coalition support was ldquothe
newest evolutionrdquo unconventional warfare was standing on shaky ground within the
Special Forces community204 The general feeling within Special Forces was
unconventional warfare no longer was a viable mission in the post-Cold War
environment and should be relegated to a lesser role or dropped altogether John Collins
highlights this feeling when he wrote ldquoCongress therefore might weigh the advisability
of discarding [unconventional warfare] as a statutory rolerdquo in favor of foreign internal
defense205
In October of 1994 Colonel Mark Boyatt then the Commander of 3rd Special
Forces Group wrote an article in Special Warfare recommending unconventional warfare
201FM 3-0520 2-5
202Ibid 2-6
203Ibid
204Ibid
205John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
84
and the other Special Forces core missions should fall under the umbrella of a new term
unconventional operations206 This concept did not catch on and in fact received some
critical reviews from his contemporaries One of his critics was Colonel Glenn Harned
who explains that a single catch-all mission like unconventional operations would not
allow a Special Forces element to stay proficient in all the skills sets necessary required
to be ldquounconventional operations qualifiedrdquo207
In October of 1998 the Commanding General of the United States Army Special
Forces Command (Airborne) then Major General William Boykin asked for input on the
relevance of unconventional warfare208 Although the results of this question are difficult
to determine from a doctrinal standpoint one of the replies highlights the
misunderstanding abound in the branch In answering this question Commander of the
3rd Special Forces Colonel Gary Jones and Major Chris Tone coauthored an article that
attempted to explain that although unconventional warfare had replaced the term guerrilla
warfare guerrilla warfare was still the primary mission of Special Forces They further
highlighted that ldquoIn the minds of most [sic] [Special Forces] soldiers [unconventional
warfare] doctrine has been oversimplified [Unconventional warfare] is just [foreign
internal defense] in a denied areardquo209 The authors go on to further misrelate insurgency
206Colonel Mark D Boyatt ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
207Colonel Glenn M Harned ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
208Kershner 84
209Colonel Gary M Jones and Major Chris Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 6
85
and guerrilla warfare when they state ldquoThe contrast between the operational
environments of the two unconventional warfare missions are striking [Guerrilla
Warfare] is conducted when our nation is at war insurgency is conducted when our
nation is at peacerdquo210 This article received a lot of positive feedback throughout the
community One supporter said that it ldquomarked the beginning of a [unconventional
Warfare] renaissance in the [Special Forces] communityrdquo211 However retired Colonel J
H Crerer wrote a critical review highlighting the mistakes of the authors for example
ldquoFirst [unconventional warfare] includes [guerrilla warfare] so it would be illogical to
use the terms interchangeably Second and more important [unconventional warfare]
also includes subversion and sabotagerdquo212
In 2000 the United States Army Special Forces Command again broached the
question of unconventional warfarersquos relevance and attempted to refocus the branch on
unconventional warfare to ensure Special Forces relevancy as the Army was concurrently
conducting similar revisions and doctrinal updates The end result was a Special Forces
Commandrsquos concept called Unconventional Warfare 2020 Colonel Michael Kershner
summarized the findings of Unconventional Warfare 2020 in a series of articles in the
spring of 2001 that highlighted the confusion with unconventional warfare and redefined
unconventional warfare Colonel Kershnerrsquos explained that the new definition of
unconventional warfare would encompass all of the other core Special Forces missions
210Ibid
211Major Mike Skinner ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare as an SF Missionrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16
212Colonel J H Crerar ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37
86
to include foreign internal defense213 This subtle change to the definition was widely
accepted by the Special Forces branch which had been struggling for years to find a
more definitive description of unconventional warfare that would ensure a ldquonicherdquo
mission that no other military unit could conduct As Colonel Kershner explained in an
interview with Dennis Steele for an article in ARMY Magazine ldquoWe donrsquot want to be
stuck in the past or step into the future in a way that is irrelevant We must focus on
relevant and unique capabilities and [unconventional warfare] is our most unique
capabilityrdquo214
One other major point of departure from the legacy unconventional warfare
doctrine discussed by Kershner was the removal of the seven phases of US-sponsored
insurgency from doctrine Kershner stated that this seven-phases construct was ldquooutdated
[and it was] more appropriate to describe [unconventional warfare] in terms of current
US doctrinal phases--engagement crisis response war-fighting and return to
engagementrdquo215 The theory that US sponsors unconventional warfare in seven phases
emerged in the 1965 version of FM 31-20 Special Forces Operations (the 31-20 series
being the predecessor to 3-0520) However even earlier Russell Volkmannrsquos 1951 FM
31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare provided a similar phasing
213Kershner 84
214Dennis Steele ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article on-line] available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet accessed on 14 May 2006
215Ibid 87
construct in which he discussed ldquoseveral operational phasesrdquo including psychological
preparations initial contact infiltration organization build-up and exploitationrdquo216
Although not part of his suggested phases Volkmann discusses demobilization as
a separate chapter217 The unconventional warfare efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq after 11
September would validate the seven-phased construct However in Afghanistan and Iraq
the phases were compressed due to political constraints and then the tempo of operations
The only phase that was not validated during operation in Afghanistan and Iraq was the
seventh phase demobilization While some resistance elements were demobilized and
returned to society a vast majority continued to serve in the postconflict phases The
seven-phase construct had been developed based on the experiences of World War II in
which there was a rapid demobilization of forces at the end of the war The new
experiences with postconflict operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may force a change in
this final phase of unconventional warfare as it transitions to foreign internal defense218
Less than six months after Kershnerrsquos articles were published the events of 11
September transpired By the summer of 2003 unconventional warfare had been
successfully conducted in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and had been used to
support the conventional offensive operations against Saddam Hussein In each of these
efforts unconventional warfare would transition to foreign internal defense of an
intensity and scale that had not been encountered by US forces since Vietnam The events
of 11 September had one more effect the results of the Unconventional Warfare 2020
216FM 31-21 37-38
217Ibid 227-232
218Authorrsquos own experiences from Northern Iraq April 2003
88
studies were lost and not incorporated into the 2003 version of FM 3-05201 Special
Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations The first paragraph in the manual describes
the aspects of unconventional warfare explaining ldquoThe intent of Unites States (US)
[unconventional warfare] operations is to exploit a hostile powerrsquos political military
economic and psychological vulnerability by developing and sustaining resistance forces
to accomplish US strategic objectivesrdquo219 It also began to capture some of the lessons
learned from Operation Enduring Freedom the most important being that unconventional
warfare operations may be supported by conventional operations instead of the more
traditional role unconventional warfare supporting conventional operations As the
manual explains ldquothere are times when introduction of conventional forces does not
take the main effort away from unconventional operations in fact the conventional
forces may support the unconventional forcesrdquo220 The newest FM 3-05201 is currently
in final unreleased draft form and is classified SECRET This will be the first
unconventional warfare manual that has been classified in its entirety In the past a
classified supplemental pamphlet supplemented the unclassified manual such as the 1961
version of FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations with a classified
supplemental FM 31-21A
In mid-January 2004 the ldquoCody Conferencerdquo was held in Cody Wyoming ldquoto
identify concepts that will be necessary for shaping the future of Army Special
219FM 3-05201 1-1
220Ibid 1-3
89
Forcesrdquo221 The twelve members of this conference included a number of senior active
duty and retired Special Forces officers as well as representatives from acclaimed
members of the media academia and private sector222 With the war on terrorism as the
focal point the conference studied the current conflict and worked to define Special
Forces role against this new threat Major General Lambert highlights that ldquoSpecial
Forcesrsquo niche is unconventional warfare which includes counterinsurgency and guerrilla
warfare Special Forces should be chartered to monitor and combat insurgencies even
though other US forces will move on to new prioritiesrdquo223 One of the recommendations
of this panel was the development of a ldquostanding deployable Special Forces
Headquartersrdquo that would be capable of conducting ldquosustained guerrilla warfarerdquo224
These last two points highlight the continued confusion of unconventional warfare
guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency that reaches even the highest levels of Special
Forces
The conference did develop a number of recommendations in addition to the just
mentioned deployable headquarters including the need for a ldquoglobal environment of
seamless information- and intelligence-sharing [improving] coalition allied and
surrogate intelligence and operational capabilitiesrdquo and ldquo[Conducting] area-denial
221Major General Geoffrey C Lambert ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20
222Ibid 27
223Ibid 23
224Ibid
90
area-control and remote-area operations either directly or with partnersrdquo225
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense would obviously play a significant
role in establishing this global capability by empowering the coalition partners to defeat
or disrupt their own internal and external threats as well as remove unfriendly regimes
that could be providing sanctuary for ones enemies as the Taliban did for Al Qarsquoida
Major General Lambert also mentions the importance of Special Forces as a ldquoforce
multiplierrdquo that ldquoconserves conventional military force for the main effortsrdquo226
In 1990 FM 100-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict the first
manual specifically written for low-intensity conflict was published in a joint effort by
the Army and Air Force The writers explain that ldquoThis manual fills a void which has
existed in the Army and Air Force for some time It complements warfighting doctrine by
providing operational guidance for military operations in [low intensity conflict] from
which implementing doctrine can be developedrdquo227 FM 100-20 also described an
organization called the Foreign Internal Defense Augmentation Force which could
augment or support the Security Assistance Organization in ldquosituations that range from
conditions short of open hostility to limited war They may locate strategically and vary
in size and capabilities according to theater requirementsrdquo228 This augmentation force if
225Ibid 22
226Ibid 24
227Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force Field Manual 100shy20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 5 December 1990) 1-1
228Ibid A-7 91
very similar to the previous described Special Action Forces of the late 1960s and early
1970s
The implementing doctrine for FM 100-20 took the form of FM 31-20-3
published four years later and titled Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and
Procedures for Special Forces The manual provided an extensive ldquohow tordquo handbook
for foreign internal defense The concepts of indirect direct and combat support to
foreign internal defense was not portrayed in this manual or its parent manual FM 100shy
20 The 1996 joint foreign internal defense manual JP 3-071 was reverse engineered
from the Special Forces manual However the joint manual was much more detailed and
had more depth
The family of Army manuals FM 100-5 and FM 3-0 Operations manuals have
only provided a basic description of foreign internal defense and to a much lesser extent
unconventional warfare The 1993 version of FM 100-5 combines support to insurgencies
and counterinsurgencies in three paragraphs total229 The 2001 version of FM 3-0
provides a much more in-depth description of foreign internal defense than the previous
FM 100-5230 However support to insurgencies is covered in three sentences in the
ldquostability operationsrdquo chapter explaining in essence that it takes a National Command
Authority (term no longer used) for Army forces to support an insurgency that Army
229Department of the Army FM 100-5 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 13-7 to 13-8
230Department of the Army FM 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2003) 9-8 to 9-9
92
special operations forces are best suited for this supporting role and that conventional
forces can support these operations if necessary231
The manual addresses special operations in a supporting role only ldquo[Special
operations forces] can reinforce augment and complement conventional forces In
war [special operations forces] normally support the theater campaign or major
operations of the [joint force commander]rdquo232 Finally the FM 3-0 describes the
battlefield organization as ldquothe allocation of forces in the [area of operation] by purpose
It consists of three all-encompassing categories of operations decisive shaping and
sustainingrdquo233 Decisive operations ldquoare those that directly accomplish the task assigned
by the higher headquarters Decisive operations conclusively determine the outcome of
major operations battles and engagementsrdquo234 FM 3-0 further defines shaping
operations as ldquo[creating] or [preserving] conditions for success of the decisive
operationsrdquo235
While FM 3-0 does not directly relate these operations to unconventional warfare
or foreign internal defense examples exist that provide ample evidence that these
operations can be decisive and shaping With regards to unconventional warfare
operations supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 were
decisive and resulted in the overthrow of the Taliban while the operations in Northern
231Ibid 9-10
232Ibid 2-8
233Ibid 4-22
234Ibid 4-23
235Ibid
93
Iraq supporting the Kurdish resistance fixed thirteen of twenty Iraqi divisions in the
North shaping the battlefield for the conventional forces invading from the south An
example of a Special Forces foreign internal defense effort that was decisive is the direct
support to the El Salvadoran military to defeat the Farabundo Marti National Liberation
Front (FMLN) and a shaping operation is the success Special Forces had in South
Vietnam developing indigenous counterinsurgency forces in support of the larger
conventional campaign None of these examples have found their way into the joint or
Army doctrine The new FM 3-0 is currently in un-releasable final draft form
Much like the Army operations doctrine the 2001 JP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint
Operations takes only a paragraph to describe unconventional warfare calling it support
to insurgency This paragraph reads
Support to Insurgency An insurgency is an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a legally constituted government through the use of subversion and armed action US forces may provide logistic and training support to an insurgency but are not normally involved in the conduct of combat operations236
The current draft of the new JP 3-0 now called Joint Operations has added one
component to the above definition ldquoThe United States may support an insurgency against
a regime threatening US [sic] interests (eg US [sic] Support [sic] to the Mujahadin [sic]
resistance in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion)rdquo237 While the both publications
capture some elements of US support to insurgency such as training and logistics support
it has obviously not been updated since Operation Iraqi Freedom based on the final
236Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Operations (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 10 September 2001) V-13
237Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) VII-9
94
statement that US forces ldquonormallyrdquo donrsquot conduct combat operations However the
description differs from the description found in FM 3-0 Operatioins in one respect it
provides a real-world example of unconventional warfare describing US efforts to
support the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets
Another important concept in the soon-to-be published Joint Publication 3-0
provides a new operational ldquophasing modelrdquo shown in figure 1 which has some
applicability to this study238 This model is important to this study because it provides the
first doctrinal recognition that any campaign is going to have multiple phases occurring
simultaneously and that operations do not stop at what has previously called conflict
termination--the end of combat operations For this study it will be important to
determine how the seven phases of US sponsored unconventional warfare fit within this
phasing construct This conceptual models has six phases--one phase covering peacetime
engagement and five the phases of an operation
238Ibid IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfare conceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
95
Figure 1 The Joint Phasing Model Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Graph can also be found in US Department of Defense Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 (Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005) available from httpwwwdticmilfuturejointwarfareconcepts approved_ccjov2pdf Internet accessed on 17 February 2006
The ldquoPhasesrdquo of the Joint Phasing Model
Phase 0-Shape-(Prevent and Deter) This is the normal peacetime engagement
environment in which the US forces are conducting operations to support the theater
security cooperation plan
96
Phase 1-Deter-(Crisis Defined) This is the first step in resolving conflict by
demonstrating military capabilities and the resolve of the US and it partners in an attempt
to deter an opponent from acting or forcing the US to react
Phase 2-Seize the Initiative-(Assure Friendly Freedom of Action and Access to
Theater Infrastructure) During this phase joint forces are applied to the problem to set
the condition for the dominate phase and may include military action and diplomatic
efforts
Phase 3-Dominate-(Establish Dominate Force Capabilities and Achieve Full
Spectrum Superiority) This is the phase that is focused on ldquobreaking the enemyrsquos will for
organized resistance or in noncombat situations control of the operational environmentrdquo
Phase 4-Stabilize-(Establish Security and restore services) This phase is required
when there is ldquolimitedrdquo or ldquono functioning legitimate civil governing entity present The
joint force may have to perform limited local governancerdquo
Phase 5-Enable Civil Authority-(Enable authorities and Redeploy) During this
phase the US joint forces support the legitimate government and more importantly it
marks the military end state and redeployment239
The new JP 3-0 also highlights that the ldquoStabilizerdquo phase may characterize the
transition from ldquosustained combatrdquo to ldquostability operationsrdquo It also rightly explains
ldquoStability operations are conducted as needed to ensure a smooth transition to the next
phase and relieve sufferingrdquo240 However the model does not provide a description of
how to identify this transition The importance of this graph will become apparent during
239JP 3-0 Joint Operations IV-33 to IV-37
240Ibid IV-36
97
the analysis portion of this thesis especially with respect to phasing unconventional
warfare and the transitions between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
Other documents are available to provide some insight into the future of Special
Forces doctrine with respect to unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense in
lieu of these soon-to-be-released doctrinal manuals These are the 2004 National Military
Strategy the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and finally the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement These three documents may hold the keys to
future unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense doctrine
The 2004 National Military Strategy identifies six capabilities required for the US
to win decisively ldquoconventional warfighting unconventional warfare homeland
security stability and postconflict operations countering terrorism and security
cooperation activities [italics-authorsrsquo emphasis]rdquo241 This statement has enormous
implications for Special Forces in the future since three of these capabilities are Special
Forces-specific and are tied directly to unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review is another important document with
respect to the future of unconventional warfare One of the Quadrennial Defense Review
decisions is to ldquoFurther increase [Special Operations Forces] capability and capacity to
conduct low-visibility persistent presence missions and a global unconventional warfare
241Joint Chiefs of Staff National Military Strategy of the Unites States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow (Washington DC Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2004) 13
98
campaignrdquo The key point here is the idea of a ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo
and determining exactly what that means242
The term ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo is used in the 2006 US Special
Operations Command Posture Statement but is not defined The posture statement does
define unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo243 These definitions are not supported by current joint definitions of
unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense adding to the overall confusion The
posture statement identifies five missions that will ldquohelp establish the conditions to
counter and defeat terrorismrdquo unconventional warfare psychological operations foreign
internal defense special reconnaissance and civil affairs244 It is interesting that direct
action and counterterrorism are not mentioned in this list of operations since these two
operations are the major capability that the Special Operations Command provides to the
overall military effort245 Not addressing these terms may be an indicator that current
studies on unconventional warfare are pointing to direct action and counterterrorism
operations against non-state actors and their infrastructure as being unconventional
242Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet accessed on 8 February 2006
243United States Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 5 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8-06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
244Quadrennial Defense Review Report 1 see glossary for definitions
245FM 3-0520 2-1 see glossary for definitions
99
The history of Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
doctrine provides a window to the past The history of unconventional warfare doctrine is
plagued with confusion from the beginning From vague definitions to mission creep the
concepts of supporting insurgencies found in the Special Forces unconventional warfare
doctrine has been proven since 11 September The current attempt to change the
unconventional warfare doctrine to align with the ldquoGlobal Unconventional Warfarerdquo is
not a new concept either and is the direct result of the vagueness of the unconventional
warfare definitions This idea is reinforced by studying foreign internal defense doctrine
which provides by far the most clear and concise definitions and doctrine
South Vietnam
The confusion over unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense reached
its climax in Vietnam Michael McClintock explains in terms of guerrilla warfare
(unconventional warfare) and counterinsurgency (foreign internal defense) ldquoThe
confusion of guerrilla warfare with counterinsurgency was in evidence from the
inceptions of the American effort to wage counterinsurgency in Vietnam What is
extraordinary is that very little thought appears to have gone into this distinctionrdquo He
suggests that ldquothe [Special Forces] generally went about the task of counterinsurgency as
if engaged in guerrilla operations behind enemy linesrdquo246
Regardless of the confusion the Special Forces programs were easily among the
most productive in the entire war effort The main Special Forces efforts were with the
246Michael McClintock Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 (wwwstatecraftorg 2002) available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet accessed on 21 February 2006
100
Civilian Irregular Defense Group program the Mobile Guerrilla Forces and Mike
Forces Another effort that is sometimes confused with unconventional warfare was the
cross-border operations conducted by the Studies and Observation Group which utilized
surrogates such as Chinese Nungs and turned former Viet Cong guerrillas in what
would more precisely be called special reconnaissance The nearly decade-long Civilian
Irregular Defense Group as Charles Simpson highlights ldquoinvolved thousands of
Vietnamese civilians millions of dollars and approximately 100 camps spread out from
the Demilitarized Zone to the Gulf of Siamrdquo247 This program unlike the Strategic
Hamlet Programs did not relocate villages but trained them to defend their own villages
which is captured by its original name--Village Defense Program248 While originally
defensive in nature it later evolved into an active defense sending out combat patrols as
early warning as well as interdicting Viet Cong or North Vietnamese units when these
villages were located in strategic locations such as astride to enemy lines of
communications
Another successful program that grew out of the necessity to have a quick
reaction force to react to Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacks on the Civilian
Irregular Defense Group camps was the Mobile Strike Forces better known as ldquoMike
Forcesrdquo The Mike Force was originally established in 1965 and formed from a battalion
of Chinese Nungs which is a tribal group originally from the Chinese and North
Vietnamese border The tenacity of these fighters had endeared them to the French and
247Simpson 95
248Ibid 99
101
were raised into ldquoNung Divisionsrdquo by the French and were settled into enclaves in South
Vietnam249
A similar program to the Mike Force was created called the Mobile Guerrilla
Force ldquoto conduct guerrilla warfare in the vast stretches of enemy-controlled territory
outside areas of operations of CIDG Campsrdquo250 An average Mobile Guerrilla Force was
made up of one Mike Force Company and a reconnaissance platoon As Charles Simpson
notes ldquoThe concept was to infiltrate these company-sized forces usually by foot and to
operate against the enemyrsquos lines of communications usually branches of the Ho Chi
Minh Trailrdquo251
All of these programs were without a doubt foreign internal defense missions
despite their ldquoguerrilla-like naturerdquo These indigenous forces were developed into
specialized but irregular units and capabilities all in an effort to defeat the Viet Cong
insurgents and disrupt North Vietnamese main force resupply and movements This was a
shaping effort for the overall US effort and was also overt It consisted of combat
support with Special Forces not only advising but actually commanding and leading
these units
North Vietnam
The Military Assistance Command Vietnam Special Observations Group was
established in 1963 with the task to pick up where the CIA had failed to conduct
249Ibid 120
250Ibid 124
251Ibid 125
102
operations in Laos and North Vietnamrdquo252 The Studies and Observation Group had four
principle covert missions under OPLAN 34A to insert and develop agent networks to
establish a fabricated resistance movement and misinformation campaign to conduct
maritime interdiction along the coast of North Vietnam and to conduct cross border
reconnaissance operations in Laos253 While considered the largest covert unconventional
warfare program since World War II the eight-year program from 1964 to 1972 had
mixed results At one end of the spectrum were the five hundred agents that upon
infiltration were neutralized or turned by the North to the successes in 1968 when the
North Vietnamese government began to fear the growing subversion However the US
policy makers feared a destabilized North Vietnamese government and for all intents and
purposes shut the programs in North Vietnam down once the Hanoi had been persuaded
to begin negotiations254 The most interesting aspect of this program was the use of
deception to make the North think a resistance was active The most noteworthy of these
efforts were the kidnapping of North Vietnamese citizens and exposing them to the fake
resistance organization known as the Sacred Sword of the Patriots League then returning
them to report to the information to their government
This was a covert unconventional warfare program and strategic shaping
operation While it was unsuccessful establishing an actual resistance the Sacred Sword
of the Patriots League was an interesting method that qualifies as an example of indirect
252Shultz xiii
253Ibid x-xi
254Ibid 330-331
103
support by using North Vietnamese citizens to unwittingly spread the rumor of the fake
resistance organization
El Salvador
Special Forces operations in El Salvador were a successful example of foreign
internal defense to help the military defeat the FMLN While this was an exceptional
example of how Special Forces could conduct foreign internal defense in direct support
to the El Salvadoran military it is routinely called an unconventional warfare operation
In fact it is identified this way in the manual that governs Special Forces operations FM
3-0520 Special Forces Operations The FM 3-0520 explains
[Special Forces] operations in El Salvador during the 1980s are an example of [unconventional warfare as the decisive operation] In this instance [unconventional warfare] operations are conducted during what would appear to all but the [unconventional warfare] participants to be operations to promote peace never progressing through operations to deter aggression and resolve conflict or actual combat255
US direct support foreign internal defense was provided to El Salvador after a rocky
period of diplomatic engagement in which the US cut off economic and military aid due
to El Salvadorrsquos ruthless counterinsurgency operations against the FMLN which included
extensive human rights violations In early 1981 the FMLN had a nearly ten thousand-
man army poised and ready to overthrow the government until President Carter chose the
lesser of two evils and lifted the economic and military sanctions which turned the tide
255FM 3-0520 2-4
104
and allowed El Salvador to thwart the insurgents When President Reagan came into
office he was much more aggressive in his desire to thwart communist expansion 256
While other economic aid was being provided the US military group was allowed
by Congress to have a total of fifty-five personnel assigned to train equip and advise a
military that initially numbered around 12000 and would grow to nearly forty-two
thousand troops over a four year period257 The Special Forces advisors were part of the
Brigade Operational Planning and Assistance Training Teams (OPATT) were also
restricted from conducting any direct combat operations Each OPATT team consisted of
three individuals assigned to a brigade which it was hoped would lead to better human
rights behavior and combat employment258 As Cecil Bailey highlights ldquoFor nearly eight
years OPATTS cycled through the brigades each one extending the progress of the
proceeding teamrdquo259 The three-man teams generally consisted of ldquoa combat-arms major
preferably with an [Special Forces] background and two [Special Forces nonshy
commissioned officers] or warrant officerrdquo260
The OPATTS were also not allowed to conduct combat operations with their
counter parts As Cecil Bailey notes lsquoThe restrictions against US military members
accompanying units on operations was especially onerous to the advisors who often
256James S Corum and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists (Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003) 329
257Ibid 333
258Cecil E Bailey ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
259Ibid
260Ibid 21
105
cited the restriction as affecting not only their relationship with their counterpart but also
their professional credibilityrdquo261 Cecil Bailey highlights the accomplishment of the
OPATTs ldquoContemporary studies evaluating the US military role in El Salvador often
praise the brigade advisers as being the leading contributors to combat effectiveness
improved human rights performance and professional behavior supporting constitutional
democratic valuesrdquo Considering that a few more than 140 Special Forces OPATT
advisors were employed during this conflict from 1985 to 1992 and were able to advise
forty battalions 40000 soldiers is impressive262 The best measure of effectiveness of
this foreign internal defense program comes from an FMLN commander Joaquin
Villallobosrsquo when he explained that ldquoputting American advisers in the brigades was the
most damaging thing that happened to them during the war He believed that the
adviserrsquos influence on the [El Salvadoran military] made them more professional and less
abusive [denying the FMLN] much of its earlier propaganda advantage and
recruiting appealrdquo263
Analysis of this conflict clearly shows that this was not unconventional warfare
but instead foreign internal defense conducted overtly and in direct support to the El
Salvadoran military although years later it would become clear that many of these
advisers were conducting combat advisory missions as well The OPATT advisory
program was the only military program conducted with no other conventional military
units participating thus making this a decisive operation
261Ibid 24
262Ibid 28
263Ibid 27
106
Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan
The operations in Afghanistan after 11 September provide a window into the
future of unconventional warfare The DOD had not been involved in an unconventional
warfare campaign of this magnitude since the Korean War The interoperability between
the CIA and special operations was unprecedented as well The preparation phase
happened from the moments after 11 September until the first CIA elements began to
infiltrate into Afghanistan which included political preparations for coalition support and
assistance with airfields and over flight rights as well as preparing the international
community and the American population for the armed response to 11 September The
CIA then established initial contact or reestablishing contacts from previous efforts in
Afghanistan Due to the compressed time schedule numerous Special Forces Operational
Detachment-Alphas infiltrated concurrently with the CIA paramilitary teams and rapidly
organized built-up and employed their Afghan counterparts264 The Special Forces and
CIA paramilitary worked in concert The Special Forces employed the Afghans guerrillas
in concert with US airpower to produce overwhelming combat power that outmatched the
Taliban At the same time the CIA subverted the Taliban by turning many of the
Talibanrsquos units through fear of destruction or through other incentives the most popular
being monetary ldquorewardsrdquo for changing sides Buying loyalty brought a whole new
meaning to the often used ldquoby with and throughrdquo is literally ldquoBUY with and throughrdquo
The Taliban was overthrown in less than two months with the interim
government of Hamid Karzai being established in mid-December This marked the shift
264CPT (now Major) Glenn Thomas conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
107
from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense as efforts transitioned to protect
the new government and its legitimacy over the coming months while at the same time
developing an internal security capability to disrupt or defeat future Taliban and Al
Qarsquoida threats This effort continues today
Until the transition this was initially a clandestine effort to infiltrate into
Afghanistan then transitioned to low-visibility operations The Special Forces
unconventional warfare operations became a decisive operation although this was not the
original plan in which they were to support the introduction of conventional forces This
was also an example of the first large-scale unconventional warfare operation utilizing
Special Forces in combat advisory approach since the OSS operations in World War II
The Afghans were not demobilized to a large extent but instead were used for
some time as militias supporting the Special Forces until they were transferred to national
control or sent home Later in the foreign internal defense operations the remaining
militias were replaced by Afghan Army units and finally disbanded or demobilized but
unlike the doctrinal seventh phase demobilization this took place sometime after the
conflict ended Once the conflict transitioned to the postconflict and unconventional
warfare transitioned to foreign internal defense the signature became overt and all
efforts by Special Forces became a supporting effort to the larger conventional
headquarters The operational approach had remained combat support with the goal
being to return to peacetime engagement and only a direct or indirect operational
approach necessary
108
Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines
Operations in the Philippines after 11 September were another component of
Operation Enduring Freedom campaign Referred to as Operations Enduring Freedom-
Philippines the mission was to support the Philippine governmentrsquos counterinsurgency or
counterterrorism efforts to defeat the Abu Sayyaf an extremist-Islamic insurgent group
with ties to Al Qarsquoida Although a classic foreign internal defense mission the actual
mission statement for the post-11 September counterinsurgency operations in the
Philippines uses unconventional warfare as the operational term
On order in support of Operation Freedom Eagle FOB 11 conduct[s] [unconventional warfare] operations in the southern Philippines through by and with the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] to assist the GRP [Government of the Republic of the Philippines] in the destruction of terrorist organizations and separate the population from those Groupsrdquo265
In this definition the correct operational task should have been foreign internal defense or
even counterterrorism not unconventional warfare This mission statement also did not
help the Philippine government that was telling its citizens that the Special Forces were in
the Philippines conducting counterinsurgency training which it called ldquoExercise
Balikatanrdquo which means shoulder to shoulder Because of the negative political
implications for the elected Philippine government they imposed a US force cap limiting
the number of American personnel involved to six hundred266
To date this foreign internal defense operation has been extremely successful
having forced Abu Sayyaf from the Basilan Island and operations continue to defeat this
265Dr C H Briscoe ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
266Robert D Kaplan Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground (New York NY Random House 2005) 146
109
organization while training the Philippine Army to conduct effective counterinsurgency
operations against the other insurgent groups that are a continued threat to the
government Despite the use of unconventional warfare in the original mission statement
this effort has been a classic overt foreign internal defense mission Since there is no
other US military effort in the country it is the decisive operations at the operational-
level and a shaping operation in the larger context of the Global War on Terror Unlike
the operations in Afghanistan the operational approach in the Philippines is direct
support
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operations with the Kurdish resistance organization in Northern Iraq provide an
excellent example of unconventional warfare supporting conventional maneuver forces It
is even more spectacular that an American Special Forces Group in this case 10th
Special Forces Group (Airborne) numbering 5200 personnel (and not all of these were
inside of Northern Iraq) was able to coordinate the efforts of over fifty thousand Kurdish
Peshmerga fighters and to succeed in fixing thirteen of Saddam Husseinrsquos twenty
divisions along a 350-kilometer front267 Also of interest is the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistanrsquos division-sized attack to regain occupied salient along the border of Iran
which was controlled by the Al Qarsquoida affiliated group called Ansar al Islam The
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan were supported by a Special Forces Company working as
advisors to coordinate indirect fires and close air support
267Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Linda Robinson Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces (New York NY Public Affairs 2004) 299
110
From the night of infiltration the longest since World War II into Northern Iraq
the timeline was once again compressed and Special Forces detachments began to engage
the Iraqirsquos along the forward line of troops known as the green-line268 Combat
operations started quickly because the Kurdish resistance was already a large well-
organized insurgent organization that had been working with the CIA for decades and
only needed minimal training in the lethal aid that was provided by the US269 Although
combat operations along the green-line began within hours of the infiltration the first
major event was the attack on Ansar al Islam which began the morning of 28 March
2003 This two day attack saw Ansar al Islam routed and the Kurdish Peshmerga able to
liberate this salient Once this threat was eliminated the focus turned to the green-line
Ten days later Kirkuk and Mosul fell and operations in the North transitioned to what
seemed like postconflict stabilization Special Forces had successfully conducted the
second unconventional warfare operations in less than two years270 One other lesson of
this conflict was the unprecedented work that Special Forces conducted in concert with
the Kurdish underground Most of the Special Forcesrsquo doctrine is focused on ldquoguerrilla
warfarerdquo versus the clandestine arts of working with undergrounds
It is also interesting to note that 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) was unable
to develop a similar capability with Shia in Southern Iraq However unlike the Kurds the
Shia did not have a self-governed sanctuary like the Kurds and were heavily oppressed
268Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq
269Robert Baer See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism (New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001) 171-213
270Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq
111
by the Iraqi regime A final unconventional warfare effort was attempted using Iraqi ex-
patriots who received only rudimentary training prior to being inserted into Iraq
generally called the Free Iraqi Force271 Part of this force had been trained by the
conventional Army in Hungry prior to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom
Elements of 5th Special Forces Group were given the task to advise the Free Iraqi Forces
but the general sense among those involved was that the these Iraqis did not have the
training nor did the Special Forces advisors have the relationships with these
counterparts to be an effective force This was an example of a good idea gone bad in
many respects Had Special Forces trained these elements developed strong relationships
with their counterparts and then been inserted with them into Iraq as part of the overall
plan their effectiveness as a political tool might have been increased272
The Special Forces would then be called upon to continue the hunt for former
regime elements At the same time they began to train and operate with the 36th
Commandos These operations were successful but the growing insurgency was not
addressed until it had already grown exponentially Special Forces did everything in its
power to keep from conducting advisory support and were finally let of the hook when
271Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and Robinson 275 Some confusion rings the FIF which was used to describe two groups of Iraqi ex-patriots one that was trained in civil affairs in Hungary and another element of soldiers Because they were all commonly referred to as FIF this is the convention that is used here
272Authorrsquos personal experiences in Northern Iraq and numerous discussions with individuals involved with this mission in Southern Iraq from August 2004 to the May 2006 and Robinson 299
112
the conventional military out of necessity established the Multi-National Security
Transition Command-Iraq273
Operations in Iraq had once again proven the usefulness of unconventional
warfare and at the same the limitations In the north during the first few days after
infiltration the Special Forces were operating clandestinely until major combat
operations in the north began This was an example of unconventional warfare shaping
the environment for the conventional decisive operation using combat advisors and
support including coordinated air interdiction Finally there was no demobilization of
Kurdish resistance members by Special Forces however there were inquiries into the
demobilization plan for each of the Kurdish factions274 It became quickly evident that
this was a task of enormous size when the current militias may be needed in the future
Because of this these elements were not demobilized but continued to operate as militias
in support of US Special Forces teams conducting foreign internal defense275
In the south efforts failed to generate a resistance force first because of the preshy
existing constraints on the Shia and second the warrsquos tempo was so fast the requirements
for an unconventional warfare effort to support the invasion were overcome by events
The Free Iraqi Forces were another element of the unconventional warfare puzzle in Iraq
but their contribution even politically was less than stellar Had the correct amount of
273Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) Available from httpwwwmnstci iraqcentcommilmissionhtm Internet accessed on 29 September 2004
274Authorrsquos personal experience in Northern Iraq April 2003
275Ibid
113
time energy and Special Forces advisors been elements of this program it might have
been more successful
Summary
The history of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense whether overt
or covert provides an interesting backdrop to the argument of whether these two
missions continue to be viable today and into the future Fifty years after the birth of
Special Forces and before the events of 11 September the decision was made that
unconventional warfare as defined by the Aaron Bank and Russell Volckmann was no
longer a viable mission and would never be conducted as envisioned Less than three
years later Special Forces has successfully prosecuted two unconventional warfare
campaigns one a decisive combat operation in Afghanistan using indigenous forces
instead of massive conventional formations and the other a shaping operation in northern
Iraq using the indigenous Kurds However despite these successes the current debate
focuses on the use of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense against non-
state actors in a short-sighted version of the previous fifty year argument
114
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS
With an understanding of the historical background of unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine this chapter will answer the secondary questions
What is unconventional warfare What is foreign internal defense and How are they
related Also this chapter will determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are applicable against non-state actors the final tertiary question The
combination of these answers will set the conditions to the answer the primary research
question in chapter 5 are unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense as
currently defined applicable to current and future Special Forces operations
To answer these questions a comparison must be made between the results of the
last chapter the historical application of these two missions and their current definitions
The analysis will determine if there is a relationship between the two missions and will
conclude with the future of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
special emphasis on their application in the Global War on Terrorism and against non-
state actors
Analysis of Unconventional Warfare
Analysis of the Unconventional Warfare Definition
In introducing this problem unconventional warfare was defined in chapter 1 to
provide the reader a point of departure for determining if the definition adequately
captured the historical application of unconventional warfare Once again the definition
of unconventional warfare is
115
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion276
An analysis of this definition provides some interesting findings when applied to the
historical examples presented in the previous chapter First the definition is correct that
these are ldquomilitary and paramilitary operationsrdquo They are military operations in that
unconventional warfare is used as an armed tool in place of conventional military
operations or to support other conventional operations
Second it is true that most of these operations have been of long duration
however the length of the operation is dependent on three factors first and foremost is
how much risk the political leadership is willing to take by putting Special Forces
soldiers into the target country earlier than declared hostilities to build an effective
insurgent force second if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or if
it is a shaping operation If it is the decisive operation then it will generally take longer
but if it is a shaping operation the length of time historically has been shorter While
historical examples may show that shaping operations are shorter operations such as the
Jedburghs and more recently 10th Group in Northern Iraq would have been more
effective if infiltration had occurred earlier The two contemporary examples of
unconventional warfare Afghanistan and Iraq validate this theory Afghanistan taking
longer because the unconventional warfare effort was the decisive operation so from
infiltration of teams in early October it took until mid-December to overthrow the
276JP 1-02
116
Taliban In Iraq unconventional and conventional operations started at the same time
with the Special Forces having very little time to organize or build up forces and within
three weeks the Coalition had successfully overthrown a much tougher opponent
Saddam Hussein
Based on current and proposed operational concepts which suggest the US
military can successfully defeat a country like Iraq in days versus weeks unconventional
warfare that begins concurrently with combat operations would not be viable as the
unconventional warfare effort in Southern Iraq demonstrate277 In this concept it will be
imperative to begin unconventional warfare months or weeks earlier than the planned
invasion The final conclusion to be drawn from this is that a time standard on this type of
operation may not be of use any longer however there are serious repercussions for not
giving Special Forces the time required to build an effective insurgency or resistance
Third unconventional warfare encompasses organizing training equipping
supporting and directing of the indigenous insurgent organization Each of these
elements are tasks in and of themselves that can be done indirectly directly or in combat
support roles They could be done indirectly such as conducting all of these tasks in a
third-party country or even through a third-party organization or front Examples of the
direct method may include conducting all these tasks in liberated sanctuary or safe areas
that do not include combat Obviously combat support would involve these tasks being
conducted while in a combat environment with the Special Forces or supporting agency
taking the same risks as the insurgents
277Brigadier General David Fastabend ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo (briefing slides for Joint Forces Command 12 April 2004) slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquo
117
Fourth one often missed component of the definition is the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo
This means that this is not a US-only definition but applies universally In other words
the ldquoexternal sourcerdquo could be Iran Syria China Cuba North Korea and even al Qarsquoida
not just the US In fact Abu Musab al-Zarqawirsquos operations in Iraq are nothing more than
an al Qarsquoida ldquoSpecial Forcesrdquo advisors conducting unconventional warfare by providing
training advising funding and a form of precision targeting--the suicide bomber--to the
Sunni insurgents278 Although not part of the definition this also highlights the
requirement to define the type of external support provided indirect direct and combat
in much the same way foreign internal defense support is described279
Fifth the definition attempts to capture all of the oddities of unconventional
warfare including the tactics--guerrilla warfare subversion and sabotage as well as the
environments and signatures of these operations--direct offensive low visibility covert
or clandestine The final part of the definition discusses ldquointelligence gatheringrdquo and
ldquoescape and evasionrdquo However these two elements apply to every Special Forces
mission and are not unconventional warfare specific This has led to the confusion of
skills versus missions the most notable being Advanced Special Operations Techniques
which are advanced skills that apply to all Special Forces missions and therefore cannot
be a mission in itself
278Major D Jones ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo (5 February 2005) scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
279Major (now Lieutenant Colonel) Mark Grdovic Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
118
Lastly the definition fails to capture the essence or purpose of unconventional
warfare--that it is the support to an insurgency Joint Publication 1-02 defines support to
insurgency as the ldquosupport provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of
a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflictrdquo280 This
definition clearly defines the purpose of unconventional warfare in much the same way
the foreign internal defense definition provides a purpose--to help another country free
and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency The purpose is
important as Hy S Rothstein shows because the lack of purpose may be the entire reason
for the confusion about unconventional warfare
Unfortunately the purpose of unconventional warfare is not so easily defined Certainly it must serve the national interests of the United States However there is no clear task so easily defined as the ldquodestruction of the enemy armyrdquo and no method so easily specified as ldquothe direct application of violent forcerdquo Consequently the basic questions about unconventional war have never been adequately answered281
While Hy Rothstein is correct in that the purpose and task is not defined in the definition
if the definition is taken in the context of the unconventional warfare doctrine then they
are readily apparent the task is to support an insurgency against a hostile regime or
occupier and the purpose is to overthrow the regime or remove the occupier Addressing
the task and purpose as outlined here may clear up the misunderstanding of the definition
280JP 1-02
281Hy S Rothstein Afghanistan and The Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare (Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006) 21
119
Analysis of the Phases of United States-Sponsored Unconventional Warfare
There are seven phases of US-sponsored insurgency the military definition being
unconventional warfare The seven phases are preparation initial contact infiltration
organization buildup combat employment and demobilization282 There have been
arguments as recently as 2001 by senior Special Forces leaders that the seven-phased
unconventional warfare model is no longer valid However based on the most recent
operations the seven-phased model is extremely accurate in describing the support to the
insurgency although the phases may have been compressed by the same circumstances
that affected Jedburgh operations in France--Special Forces were not infiltrated into the
sector until conventional combat operations were already underway283
Phase I of unconventional warfare ldquopreparationrdquo includes the decision to use
military force against a threatening nation the planning and the preparations for its use
and the psychological preparations of the threatening nationrsquos population the
international community and the American public284 Some confusion exists with respect
to another operational term operational preparation of the environment which is easily
confused with this phase of unconventional warfare Thomas OrsquoConnell DOD Assistant
Secretary for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict provides some insight into
what operational preparation of the environment is and is not during an interview with
282Department of the Army Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations (Washington DC Department of the Army April 2003) 1-11 to 1-17
283Kershner 2-2
284FM 3-05201 1-11
120
Linda Robinson ldquoItrsquos becoming familiar with the area in which you might have to
work Itrsquos nonhostile recon Itrsquos not intrusive Others without military background
may view it as saber rattling but itrsquos as far from that as you can getrdquo285 Linda Robinson
continues ldquoIn the 1980rsquos OrsquoConnell said special operations forces spent lots of time
preparing to respond to hijackings kidnappings and takeovers of embassies To do that
they visited embassies and airports and examined possible helicopter landing zones and
assault zonesrdquo286
An example of the residual confusion can be found in an article by Colonel
Walter Herd ldquoIn war fighting if your fighting by with amp [sic] through indigenous forces
or if yoursquore collecting intelligence and conducting operational preparation of the
environment by with and through indigenous forces your conducting unconventional
warfarerdquo287 This confusion is politically sensitive in terms of how another nation may
define unconventional warfare If they define it as support to an insurgency then
obviously just conducting operational preparation of the environment if it is mistaken for
the first phase of unconventional warfare could have grave repercussions much like the
mistaken unconventional warfare mission statement during Operation Enduring Freedom-
Philippines discussed in the previous chapter Thomas OrsquoConnell is correct when he
stipulates that operational preparation of the environment can apply to any special
285Linda Robinson ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet accessed on 12 May 2006
286Ibid
287Colonel Walter Herd ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service (13 June 2005) available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet accessed on 12 May 06
121
operations mission from counterterrorism to counterproliferation With respect to
unconventional warfare it may allow long-term relationships with host nation partners to
develop just like they do during normal foreign internal defense training missions that
may ease the initial contact phase of unconventional warfare if that were ever necessary
An example of this relationship--US Special Forces conducted foreign internal
defense in a country then for some reason the government was overthrown and these
former military personnel that had worked with the Special Forces are now the cadre of
the insurgency In fact due to vast number of coalition operations and combined training
exercises the long-term relationships that are developing throughout the world may
change the nature of the second phase--initial contact Instead of initial contact it may be
reminiscent of the CIA contacting former associates in Afghanistan or in Northern Iraq
about a new endeavor--overthrowing the current regime
Phase II ldquoinitial contactrdquo was originally in the CIA charter288 The purpose of
this phase is to conduct ldquoan accurate assessment of the potential resistance and
[arrange] for the reception and initial assistancerdquo of the US operational elements that will
be infiltrated during the next phase289 This is generally a covert or clandestine activity
normally conducted in one of two ways First of all this initial contact is likely to be the
first time that a representative of the US government contacts or approaches an insurgent
organization that has only recently emerged or has never been contacted by the US
before This could be due to any number of reasons such as political or geographic
isolation The second type of approach the inherently easier of the two is with a
288FM 3-05201 1-12 and Bank 160-2 173
289FM 3-05201 1-14
122
previously contacted group that is now in a position of influence that the US would like
to capitalize on to further US national interests Although in contact with US
representatives prior to this time in Phase II this group is being asked for the first time to
work with the US in an unconventional warfare campaign to overthrow the regime As
explained in the description of Phase I having contacts with numerous groups throughout
the world greatly benefits the US and increased the speed of response in a crisis Also
during this phase if the security environment is high risk for US personnel resistance
personnel could be exfiltrated trained in a third party country and when ready inserted
as the only operational element that will infiltrate in phase III--infiltration--instead of US
operational elements
Phase III ldquoinfiltrationrdquo is the entry of the first DOD operational elements into the
insurgentsrsquo areas and has been the doctrinal hand-off between the other governmental
agencies and Special Forces290 This will be the first significant presence in theater
which may now include forward operational bases or other command control or logistics
nodes supporting the committed operational forces In indirect approaches this may not
be the infiltration of US operational elements but newly trained indigenous operational
assets
Phase IV ldquoorganizationrdquo ensures that the indigenous forces are effectively
organized for the buildup phase Phase V291 This has historically included in-processing
issuing weapons pay oaths to the future government and medical screenings However
290FM 3-05201 1-15 3-1 2 and Banks 172-175 and John M Collins ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 25
291FM 3-05201 1-15
123
this process has been much more difficult to accomplish in the compressed timelines and
large numbers of insurgents to in-process during the last two unconventional warfare
efforts The concept is sound and protects US interests by providing a record of what
training was conducted and weapons were issued It also provides a means of providing
the emerging government some records of those with training that could work as militias
or conventional soldiers The end state of this phase is an insurgent force that is organized
by function and mission capable of growth if necessary and with the appropriate
command and control structures in place
Phase V ldquobuild-uprdquo is the growth of the insurgency The operational elements
must balance the assigned mission with security and logistical support capability In
insurgency it is not the size that matters but effects and survivability Therefore the size
of the insurgent force is not based on preconceived end strength but on three aspects
effect that needs to be generated for mission accomplishment the constraints of the
security environment and the logistical constraints292 In a less security-constrained
environment with freedom of movement such as liberated areas or sanctuary areas then
larger forces can be organized and built-up In a constrained security environment for
example urban areas smaller cellular networks are used for security and survivability
The last aspect of build-up is the ability of the area to support an insurgent organization
In rural or agrarian societies that mass produce food then the population will be able to
logistically support a larger insurgent group In a constrained environment such as a city
292Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 12 April 2001) 1-4 to 1-5
124
or if the counterinsurgency forces have implemented rationing then the area is going to
be less capable to support a movement larger than a small cell
Phase VI ldquocombat employmentrdquo begins with the offensive air or ground
campaign by conventional forces or if purely an unconventional warfare campaign such
as Afghanistan a Special Forces and indigenous ground campaign293 The insurgents will
conduct operations either until link-up with conventional forces or the defeat of the
government or occupying forces leading to the eventual take over of the country If the
insurgents are unable to gain victory or control of the environment they may be forced
into one of the following options (1) conduct a retreat withdrawal or delaying action to
trade space for time (2) disperse into small cells and hide within the population or
restricted terrain (3) establish a defense in restricted terrain if a larger force to regroup
reorganize and prepare for further offensive operations or (4) withdraw to sanctuary
areas which may be in an adjoining country The worst case would be for the insurgents
to be decisively engaged and destroyed
Phase VII ldquodemobilizationrdquo has historically meant disarming and disbanding the
insurgentsrsquo overt military forces such as guerrillas and returning them to their pre-crisis
place in society However if the experiences since 11 September are an indicator in the
future the majority of insurgent forces will transition to local militias and general-purpose
forces in preparation for establishing a secure environment until national police and
military forces can take over this role entirely At such a time as a nation-wide security
force is employed then the remaining ldquomilitiasrdquo or ldquoirregularsrdquo will be demobilized by
their government Historically US unconventional warfare efforts have ended in three
293FM 3-05201 1-17 3-1
125
ways demobilization termination of support with no demobilization and recently in
Iraq and Afghanistan the insurgent forces have become local militias and in some cases
national forces and are not actually demobilized until well into foreign internal defense
operations Because of these three possible outcomes ldquodemobilizationrdquo may not be the
best description of this phase Even in the unconventional warfare doctrinal manual FM
3-05201 demobilization is said to be a ldquomajor activity of transitionrdquo294 ldquoTransitionrdquo is a
much more accurate term than demobilization
Foreign Internal Defense
Analysis of the Foreign Internal Defense Definition
Interestingly the epitome of a clear definition is Foreign Internal Defense JP 1shy
02 defines Foreign Internal Defense as ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of
a government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo295 JP 3-071 Joint
Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense further categorizes
Foreign Internal Defense into three types of support indirect direct (not involving
combat operations) and combat support296 As noted in JP 3-071 ldquoThese categories
represent significantly different levels of US diplomatic and military commitment and
riskrdquo297
294Ibid 4-2 295JP 1-02
296Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 30 April 2004) x
297Ibid I-4 126
There is also some debate if Special Forces conduct foreign internal defense or
instead conduct a lesser operation under foreign internal defense such as
counterinsurgency or training since this is an overarching term for a myriad of
interagency programs that span all the elements of a supporting nationrsquos national
power298 The argument is valid although the clarity of this operation comes from the
part of the definition that states the conditions to be met ldquoto free or protect its society
from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo This portion of the definition is the
driving factor behind efforts of Special Forces The fact that this effort takes an
interagency effort supporting another governmentrsquos internal defense and development
plan provides context to the solution which is important in this day of the military
assuming a heavy burden in Iraq and Afghanistan A similar argument could be made
with respect to counterinsurgency and if the US actually conducts this operation or only
supports another countryrsquos counterinsurgency efforts However if insurgency is an
overarching term for any type of armed resistance aimed at either the overthrow of a
government or the removal of an occupying power then there are instances such as Iraq
where the initial counterinsurgency efforts may be a unilateral US effort or as a coalition
As the new government is established the operational approach begins to shift from
combat support In efforts such as the Philippines the effort is direct support to help the
host nation defeat an internal threat while meeting US national objectives of defeating al
Qarsquoida associated networks
298LTC (retired) Mark Lauber Multiple discussion with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
127
So although debate may exist about the role of Special Forces in foreign internal
defense the definition is clear where the unconventional warfare definition is not in the
condition or end-state of the operation The foreign internal defense doctrine also
provides the three levels of support which further clarifies the types of support provided
These two elements may be the solution for clarifying the unconventional warfare
definition
Relationships between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Although it is easy to understand that unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense are different and likely opposite in their end states considering the historical
background presented in the last chapter it is difficult to tie this directly to why words
matter Some may say that as long as the Special Forces operators understands what they
are supposed to be doing on the ground at the tactical level everything else will fall in
place However this argument is much more fundamental than it would seem Regardless
of the similarities in tactics techniques and procedures at the tactical level it is the end
state that matters most Iraq provides a good example of this concept Abu Musab
Zarqawi beheaded prisoners while videotaping the brutal execution and received
relatively minor international reaction Compare this to the global reaction and
international outcry when the US soldiers humiliated the prisoners at Abu Ghriab prison
Although the actions of the US soldiers were extremely unprofessional and an
embarrassment to the US the prisoners did not die horrendous deaths The beheading de-
legitimized the US and Iraqi efforts because it added to the sense of insecurity and
violence and appealed to younger members of the Muslim society that were prone to
128
jihadi-propaganda At the same time the acts of the US soldiers de-legitimized the US
and Iraqi efforts by completely countering the US information operationrsquos efforts to
portray the US as a liberator The US wanted to show how the US was freeing the Iraqis
from the oppression of Saddam yet the Iraqi citizens were being mistreated by their so-
called liberators Had the soldiers understood the concept of legitimacy and that every
one of their actions either helped or hurt the US and the fledgling Iraqi governmentrsquos
legitimacy and with it the chances of success they may not have made these mistakes
The same can be said of US militaryrsquos preference for kinetic effects versus
nonkinetics in counterinsurgency Had the US military understood from the beginning of
the postconflict phase that legitimacy was the most important commodity for US efforts
then ldquocordon and searchrdquo would have been replaced with the ldquocordon and knockrdquo early in
the conflict Instead this concept took nearly two years to be implemented across Iraq
While these are not specifically Special Forces examples they are used here since the
background knowledge is more widely known
Logical Lines of Operations
One method for clarifying the relationship between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense is a logical lines of operation comparison Logical lines of
operations are defined by Dr Jack D Kem as ldquoa cognitive operational framework
planning construct used to define the concept of multiple and often disparate actions
arranged in a framework unified by purpose All logical lines of operation should lead
129
to the [Center of Gravity or COG]rdquo299 In the following examples the short title for the
logical line of operation is labeled and the operational objectives the conditions decisive
points or effects that must be met along that line are defined by boxed number at the
bottom of the chart The corresponding numbered boxes are then placed on the lines of
operations which they support As Dr Kem explains ldquo[operational] objectives in a logical
line of operation depict causal relationships that are both linear and nonlinear
Operational objectives are depicted along a logical line of operation the same operational
objectives may be depicted along more than one logical line of operationrdquo300
While both of the lines of operation charts provide large number of operational
objectives boxes or circles and their corresponding numbers it should be noted that the
actual objectives chosen will depend on the operational considerations--environment
signature relationship and approach In fact some of the objectives could become lines
of operations of their own especially as these lines of operations are translated into
mission orders for subordinate units It should also be noted that the following lines of
operations are for the most part military lines of operations and support or are supported
by the interagency and the conventional military lines of operations across the elements
of national power--diplomatic informational military and economic--when appropriate
Finally because information operations are so important to this type of warfare they are
integral to every objective and therefore there is not an additional information operation
line of operation
299Dr Jack D Kem Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade (Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd) 34-35
300Ibid
130
Unconventional Warfare Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 2 provides an example of the logical lines of operation for unconventional
warfare The diagram captures all of the operational considerations-environment
signature relationship and approach and the logical lines of operation The operational
considerations have a significant effect on how the operational objectives are reached
For example one operational objective might be to organize an indigenous resistance
How this is done depends on the environment and the constraints of the operational
signature So in a covert operation conducted in a hostile environment a direct or combat
approach may be used However under the same considerations but in a denied area
where US personnel cannot penetrate the security environment indigenous personnel
may have to be trained in an adjacent country and then reinserted into the operational
area
131
Figure 2 Unconventional Warfare Operational Considerations and Logical Lines
The logical lines shown in figure 2 are examples of the types of Special Forces
specific logical lines of operation along upon which they would apply their
unconventional warfare advising training and equipping capabilities and skills In this
example the logical lines of operation and the longer descriptions are
132
1 Gain Popular Support US advisors ensure that all operations take into
consideration the population Operations are also conducted to show the ineptitude of the
government and its failings to protect the population and its basic needs which would
include attacks on governmental infrastructure
2 Gain International Support Actions must also take into consideration the
international community One of the key elements of this effort is the insurgentrsquos ability
to adhere to the laws of land warfare in order to gain belligerent status throughout the
conflict Other factors include highlighting the governments or occupiers excessive use of
force or human rights violations
3 Develop Insurgent Infrastructure Organize and employ operational
intelligence logistics and political infrastructure infiltrate government agencies develop
capabilities tied to the desired effect provide lethal and nonlethal support
4 Defeat Government forces (or the occupying forces) This is done either
physically or psychologically by attacking the security forces center of gravity and
critical vulnerabilities and capabilities while protecting the insurgent force and US effort
support Coalition land forces during invasion if conducting shaping operations
5 Prepared for Postconflict The insurgents with the help of the US begin to
develop the long-range plans on preparing the environment for the postconflict phases by
establishing underground or shadow governments from the local to national level
identifying the personnel that will take over the key government positions at the
transition secure or protect key infrastructure and psychologically prepare the
population for the transition
133
6 Shape for the Combined Forces Land Component Commander When
unconventional warfare is a shaping operation for a larger conventional decisive
operations then the insurgents set the conditions such as forcing the continued
commitment of forces to rear area security providing intelligence and guides
establishing downed aircrew networks and seizing or securing limited objectives
In this case the center of gravity is the population The unconventional warfare
end state would be the de-legitimized hostile government or an occupying power
overthrown and conditions set for the establishment and protection of a new government
Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis provide a good
example of the logical lines of operation in foreign internal defense information
operations security operations development of security forces reestablishing essential
service developing government infrastructure and promoting economic growth301 All of
the logical lines of operation are aimed at the center of gravity--the people Like the
insurgents the government must gain and maintain its legitimacy from the people The
foreign internal defense end state is a ldquosecure and stable environment maintained by
indigenous forces under the direction of a legitimate national government that is
freely elected and accepts economic pluralismrdquo302
301Major General Peter W Chiarelli and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
302Ibid
134
Figure 3 provides another example of possible logical lines of operations again
related to Special Forces foreign internal defense capabilities They are
1 Security Operations The first priority for any government facing an insurgency
is to establish a secure environment through population control measure offensive
operations such as search and attack cordon and search or cordon and knock to deny the
insurgentsrsquo access to the population and freedom of movement
2 Gain Popular Support Gaining and maintaining the support of the population is
the overall goal and path to victory since the population is the center of gravity therefore
it is imperative for long-term success that the population views the government as
legitimate It is equally important for the US effort to be viewed as legitimate versus
being viewed as an occupier or supporting a puppet government
3 Gain International Support It is also important for the governmentrsquos internal
defense efforts to be legitimized accepted and supported by the international community
To be successful most governments will rely on the international community to provide
economic aid or relief of debt and moral support
4 Defeat Insurgents If done correctly the first three lines should de-legitimize
the insurgents and lead to their lasting defeat This line will attack the hard-core
insurgents Some may succumb to offers of amnesty but most will need to be killed or
captured through offensive operations
5 Develop Host Nation Internal Security Internal security forces such as local
and national police forces key facility protection corps diplomat security personnel
coast guard criminal investigation paramilitary forces for counterinsurgency local and
national level special weapons and tactics capabilities will be necessary to defeat the
135
internal threat as a law enforcement matter The coalition forces will provide security for
the entire country Then as the internal security forces are trained the coalition will
transition to only protecting the nation from external threats until such a time as the
actual national military force is trained equipped and can conduct unilateral operations
As in the unconventional warfare model the population is once again the center
of gravity The end state is a legitimate government that the population trusts and is able
to detect and defeat internal and external threats
Figure 3 Foreign Internal Defense Operational Considerations and Logical Lines of Operation
136
Comparison of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Logical Lines of Operation
Figure 4 now builds on the previous two sections and shows the significance of
the differences between these two operations In the figure the center of gravity is
depicted by the box The sphere floats in this box and its legitimacy is affected by the
success or failures of US support Although both unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are depicted simultaneously only one operation would be conducted at
anyone time against a government Beginning with the unconventional warfare effort on
the left the logical lines of operations affect the legitimacy of the government In a
perfect situation the government is unable to counter this threat and the government loses
legitimacy and ultimately fails leading to the insurgent victory which takes place when
the ldquosphererdquo is dislodged to the right This success can be further enhanced if
conventional forces are added to the equation which in theory will cause a much faster
defeat of the enemy government
Figure 4 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Relationship Model
137
If on the other hand this is a foreign internal defense mission the US efforts
along the logical lines of operation are aimed at supporting the government and
attempting to defeat or dislocate the insurgency If operations progress well along the
logical lines of operation then the population begins to favor the government pushing
the sphere to the left If done correctly the sphere will continue to move left as the
military in concert with a responsive government provides a secure environment and
will ultimately lead to the separation of the insurgents from the populations Success for
this foreign internal defense is a strong legitimate government capable of identifying and
defeating subversion lawlessness and insurgency on their own
The Transition Point between Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
There is no discussion in doctrine of a transition between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense In fact the idea that unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense are related has never really been articulated In a major operation or
campaign involving conflict and postconflict environments there is an identifiable
transition period between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense The
transition between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense happens at the
point when US or Coalition forces have removed the regime and have become the
occupying power or have installed an indigenous governing body even if only for the
interim
US forces had a difficult time identifying that the insurgency was growing
Special Forces understood that something was happening but didnrsquot understand clearly
138
that what was taking place was a transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense in both Iraq and Afghanistan Even if they may have suspected that the
transition was taking place finding and neutralizing the top fifty-five of the former
regime in Iraq and senior al Qarsquoida and Taliban leadership in Afghanistan became
priority one This was likely due to the fact that the goal was regime removal but the
order to kill or capture the top fifty-five led to the over-focus on this task by Special
Forces and the other special operations forces
In Iraq more so than Afghanistan the insurgents spent the first two months
establishing their underground or clandestine command control intelligence and lines of
communication networks Once their networks were established and secure then they
began to increase their capability to prosecute terrorism guerrilla warfare and in some
place like Fallujah and An Anbar province a low-level form of mobile warfare having
been able to organize and employ large forces capable of holding terrain for short periods
of time In Afghanistan due to a much smaller population of pro-Taliban and al Qarsquoida
fighters and less urbanized terrain the insurgency has grown much more slowly over the
last five years and will continue to grow at a slower rate By the time that Special Forces
and the conventional military identified a transition to foreign internal defense the
insurgency had already escalated well into the guerrilla warfare stage Had this transition
been identified earlier counterinsurgency operations could have been conducted to
disrupt the insurgentsrsquo clandestine networks before they could be established and the
insurgents could gain the initiative
139
The unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense transition point can be
modeled using ldquothe Staterdquo versus ldquothe Counter-Staterdquo relationship303 The State is the
enemy government or an occupying power The Counter-State would be the insurgent
elements assisted by or in conjunction with US forces The goal is to either remain or
become the State For example the US and its coalition partners including the supported
insurgents are the Counter-State and use military force to overthrow the regime or the
State
The transition point is the point at which the Counter-State successfully defeats
the regime and becomes ldquothe new Staterdquo An important revelation for the new State
happens at the transition point The new State must immediately switch its mindset and
tactics to protect itself in order to now remain the State The transition from the Counter-
State to the State corresponds to the transition between unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense as well as the transition between conflict and postconflict
So what happens to ldquothe old Staterdquo At the time the old State becomes the
Counter-State it has two options accept defeat or not If it chooses defeat then the
postconflict nation building will occur more rapidly and with less violence than has been
encountered in Iraq as in the case of Germany and Japan after they were occupied by the
Allies in World War II If the Counter-state does not accept defeat then it begins using
303The State versus Counter-State theory was originally based on a presentation on the relationship between the counterinsurgent and the insurgent by Dr Gordon McCormick US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division presented at the Unconventional Warfare Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC for further discussion of Dr McCormickrsquos ldquoDiamond modelrdquo see Lieutenant Colonel (P) Eric P Wendtrsquos article ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
140
tactics appropriate to its capabilities either political or military or a combination to
regain its State status William Flavin explains these options in his article on conflict
termination ldquoWhen the friendly forces can freely impose their will on the adversary the
opponent may have to accept defeat terminate active hostilities or revert to other types
of conflict such as geopolitical actions or guerrilla warfarerdquo304 The former regime
elements in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are examples of new Counter-States that
have not accepted defeat
The confusion between unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
comes much like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan when the US and the Coalition became
the State prior to the end of major combat operations Flavin explains that the transition
point or what he calls conflict termination is ldquothe formal end of fighting not the end of
conflictrdquo305 In Iraq after the regime was defeated combat operations were still ongoing
but inadequate steps were taken to ensure that the US and coalition protected the interim
government and themselves as the State
The fact that Special Forces never positively identified this transition and
continued to conduct what they thought was unconventional warfare versus attempting to
disrupt the budding insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan is important This failure to
identify the shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense had a
detrimental effect on US stabilization operations First the unconventional warfare
mindset focused Special Forcesrsquo continued efforts on hunting former regime elements or
304William Flavin ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet accessed on 24 August 2004
305Ibid
141
on other activities that were tangential or irrelevant to securing the State The mindset
was that the mission was not over until all of the key members of the former regime were
killed or captured In Iraq this focus was provided by the ldquo55-most wantedrdquo deck of
cards In Afghanistan the hunt for Usama bin Laden and his associates continued
unabated with all efforts focused on him
In both cases Special Forces efforts were focused on single individuals with little
regard for other more crucial missions aimed at securing the environment and the State
This allowed the insurgents and the foreign fighters to establish underground elements-shy
command intelligence operational and support networks The establishment of
underground organizations allowed the insurgency to transition from a latent or incipient
phase to the guerrilla warfare phase
The Transition Curve Model
One of the key observations of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is that at
some point in both conflicts the operations shifted from conflict to postconflict and for
Special Forces particularly from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense The
question that arises is where did this ldquoshiftrdquo or ldquotransitionrdquo take place with relation to
time space or effort As shown in figure 5 graphing these operations with respect to
time and overall US effort including unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense
operations a pattern emerges that models what would be the ldquobest caserdquo scenario--a nice
clean bell curve that goes from minimal US effort and Special Forces presence in the
peacetime engagement phases and begins to rise as the decision is made to use military
force to overthrow or defeat another government At the decisive point the conflict phase
has been successful and the enemy government is defeated which signifies the shift from 142
conflict to postconflict This model provides a framework for mapping progress and for
planning campaigns
The Transition Curve (see figure 5) was originally developed to model Special
Forcesrsquo participation in full spectrum operations focused first on the seven phases of US-
sponsored unconventional warfare second on the identification of the conflict
termination point which marks the transition from unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense and finally to model a nine-phased foreign internal defense operation
and the eventual return to peacetime engagement306 The graph was developed to correct
the doctrinal misunderstanding surrounding the Special Forces missions in Iraq and
Afghanistan307 The transition point draws a distinct line between unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense to reduce confusion
306The nine-phased foreign internal defense model was developed by the author based on his experience in Kosovo to capture the salient steps that must take place to return to prewar levels and peacetime engagement For this study they will only be referred in general terms
307The author developed the graph as an instructor at the Special Forces Detachment Officer Qualification course in September of 2003
143
Figure 5 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model
144
The unconventional warfare phases are the same as discussed above although
ldquotransitionrdquo has been substituted for demobilization For this study a non-doctrinalshy
phased foreign internal defense model was developed and used to allow the phases to be
mapped on the transition curve The nine phases used here start at the transition point
(signifying the establishment of an interim government or occupation decree) phase I-
gain control phase II-secure the environment phase III-humanitarian response phase
IV-training and employment phase V-reconstruction phase VI-sovereignty phase VII-
revitalization phase VIII-neutralization and phase IX-normalization308
Modeling Afghanistan and Iraq
Now that the phases have been described the transition curve will be used to model
operations in Afghanistan and Iraq The Afghanistan model (see figure 6) only shows the
initial year to keep the focus on the transition phase and not what is happening today
Afghanistan is unusual since it began with such a small decisive force initially there
were only three Special Forces operational detachments-Alphas later building up to a
total of seventeen by December of 2001 with very few conventional forces engaged until
the transition point and the establishment of the interim government At the transition
point in mid-December 2001 larger US and coalition force build-up took place
However the only areas that were secure were the major cities Everywhere else was
called the ldquowild wild Westrdquo309 The continued lack of security had made it difficult for
any reconstruction effort outside the major cities forcing some nongovernmental
308The nine phases were developed from the authorrsquos combined experiences in Kosovo and Northern Iraq
309Captain T interview
145
Figure 6 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)
146
organizations to withdraw US military civil affairs teams and the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams have become more active in an effort to pacify many of the
unsecured areas310
The level of insecurity has been steadily increasing over time This security
problem can also be tied to the efforts of US military In most cases Special Forces have
not changed their mission since the war began to stay on the offensive against remnants
of the Taliban and Al Qarsquoida Special Forces at this point should simply focus on
establishing a secure environment by taking an active role in training indigenous police
and military forces and acting as advisors to these units as they deploy in the outlying
areas This in turn will make the population feel more comfortable about providing
human intelligence which can then be acted on to neutralize the insurgent remnants
For Iraq (see figure 7) it is obvious that the country is not secure and is potentially getting
less secure as the insurgents continue to disrupt the stability and reconstruction efforts
This difficulty began with the uncontrolled looting at first and now the US is playing
catch-up to the insurgents It was not until the insurgency had become organized that the
coalition began trying to disrupt it instead of disrupting it before it ever had a chance to
get started
The other interesting aspect of this graph is with respect to force numbers
Immediately after the conflict it may have taken 130000 coalition troops to secure the
most difficult areas in and around the ldquoSunni Trianglerdquo However over the first several
months the insurgency began to grow in strength at the same time the conventional army
310Dobbins 140-141
147
Figure 7 Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Model of Operations in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom)
148
was forced to take on multiple roles such as training and advising economic
reconstruction and local governance All of these secondary tasks meant that there were
few forces to establish security Add to this the collapse of the Iraqi police and the
disbandment of the Iraqi Army as well as the US attrition based counterinsurgency
efforts the insurgency grew exponentially during the first two years Now with current
coalition and Iraqi troop levels the security situation is still unfavorable yet there are
nearly twice as many troops with a total of 211700 Iraqi security forces trained and
equipped311 The graph also shows that the US conventional forces have to make up the
differences between the current indigenous force levels and what they need to be Until
this line grows to meet the US Force levels then the US will have to continue to commit
large numbers of ground troops
Comparison of the Transition Curve Model Phasing and the Joint Phasing Model
One question that arises from this analysis of the phases of unconventional
warfare and foreign internal defense is how do these phases and the transition point
correlate to the new joint operational phasing Figure 8 provided a visual example of the
joint phases and the corresponding phases of unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense
It is apparent upon further analysis that how these phases match up to the joint
phasing diagram depends if the unconventional warfare effort is the decisive operation or
the supporting effort It should also be noted that operational preparation of the
311Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report (Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005) slide 8
149
environment happens prior to the operational plan being approved by the President In
this sense operational preparation of the environment ends with the approval of the
operational plan and the first phase of unconventional warfare begins Once again this
highlights that operational preparation of the environment is a different mission set from
unconventional warfare and is applicable to any mission
Figure 8 Joint Phasing Diagram with the Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense Transition Curve Superimposed
Source US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination (Washington DC US Government Printing Office 23 December 2005) IV-33 Note Numbering is authorrsquos
150
The Future of Unconventional Warfare and Foreign Internal Defense
Unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense have a permanent place in
the future range of military operations doctrine The 2006 US Special Operations
Command posture statement highlights this fact stating ldquo[Special operations forcesrsquo] key
role in the long-term fight will be conducting [unconventional warfare] and [foreign
internal defense] to build foreign capabilities that deny terrorist organizations the ability
to sustain their effortsrdquo312 However in the same posture statement they define
unconventional warfare as ldquoworking with by and through indigenous or surrogate
forcesrdquo and foreign internal defense as ldquotraining host nation forces to deal with internal
and external threatsrdquo313 What are not clear are the differences in indigenous forces and
host nation forces nor does this definition of unconventional warfare provide the purpose
of working with by and through The idea that unconventional warfare is working by
with and through other forces indigenous or surrogates is not a new concept or point of
confusion found only in the US Special Operations Command posture statement The
Special Forces definition of unconventional warfare found in FM 3-0520 is the same as
defined in JP 1-02 except that through with and by are added ldquo[Unconventional
Warfare] is a broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations predominantly
conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forcesrdquo314
312United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 6 available from httpwwwhousegovhasc schedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006
313Ibid
314FM 3-0520 2-1
151
One of the difficulties applying unconventional warfare as an overarching term to
the war on terror is the context of the doctrine which shows that unconventional warfare
is used to support armed indigenous forces aimed at overthrowing the government of a
nation-state and therefore does not apply against the than it cannot be used against a non-
state actor Other than Afghanistan al Qarsquoida has not yet successfully occupied any other
foreign nations Operations using indigenous or surrogate forces that are not aimed at the
overthrow of a government would more precisely be called foreign internal defense
direct action special reconnaissance counterterrorism or counter-proliferation All of
these operations can doctrinally be conducted with surrogate forces but are not
unconventional warfare
This subtlety is another important aspect of why words matter An example of this
is the CIArsquos training of an Afghan unit to capture Usama bin Laden in 1998--a classic
example of counterterrorism not unconventional warfare as some would stipulate315
Another example of this concept comes from World War II when Aaron Bank was given
a mission to ldquoraise a company strength unit of German defectors military and civilian
conduct subversion sabotage and guerrilla actions and above all capture high-ranking
Nazisrdquo in what was believed to be their last holdout areas in the Austrian Alps316 Merely
by the subversion sabotage and guerrilla warfare aspects of this mission it would seem
to be a form of unconventional warfare however due to the short duration and limited
315ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo CBS News (15 September 2004) available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet accessed on 24 April 2006
316Bank 72-74
152
objectives of the mission of harassment versus overthrow it better qualifies it as a direct
action mission
In determining the future usefulness of unconventional warfare and foreign
internal defense three threat models have to be addressed those within the borders of a
state those that transnational or non-state actors and those in the amorphous
ldquoungoverned spaces or failed nations
In the first case threats within the border of a nation unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense will always have important roles The possible nation state
threats are hostile nations (Iraq) rogue nations (North Korea) states that sponsor
terrorism and insurgency (Iran and Syria) and states that are seized or controlled by al
Qarsquoida most likely within the caliphate boundary are exactly what unconventional
warfare was developed for--to overthrow regimes by supporting insurgency
As the previous example and the historical analysis demonstrate the future
foreign internal defense possibilities and applications are endless As has been witnessed
foreign internal defense can be used across the spectrum of conflict--from peacetime to
high-intensity postconflict environments--where a government friendly or passive to the
US needs help to effectively combat growing or potential insurgency subversion or
lawlessness Thus foreign internal defense is likely to be the primary mission due to the
number of friendly countries that face insurgency while unconventional warfare will be
reserved for the cases where there is a hostile rogue failed or terrorist-sponsoring
country
The second case is against non-state actors or transnational threats that threaten
regions or seek to upset the global balance and are not bound by borders The problem
153
with applying unconventional warfare against a non-state actor that is not in control of a
nation is that unconventional warfare was designed for use against a hostile government
or occupying power within a state Al Qarsquoida is neither a state nor an occupier as of yet
although the Taliban-led and al Qarsquoida supported Afghanistan could be the closest model
Al Qarsquoida and its associated movements are better classified as a global insurgency All
three of these elements eliminate unconventional warfare as the correct overall operation
term to be used to counter al Qarsquoida or other non-state actors The ldquoglobalrdquo aspect of this
insurgency also does not support the use of foreign internal defense as an overarching
term either since the problem is bigger than a single nation yet it is related to the defense
of the current global systems or global status quo In these cases there will be some
countries that are threatened by insurgencies supported by non-state actors such as the
insurgencies in Iraq and the Philippines in which case foreign internal defense will the
operation that has to be conducted to defeat these elements In the case of a hostile
regime that either supports a non-state actor is a puppet of the non-state actor or in fact
has been taken over by the non-state actor than unconventional warfare will be used to
overthrow these unfriendly regimes
The final threat model is that of the failed nation or ungoverned spaces Failed
states are best described as states that have no or minimally functioning governments
The Taliban run Afghanistan without its al Qarsquoida influences provides a good example
of a failed nation Even in failed states a State and a Counter-State can be identified In
the case of a hostile State unconventional warfare could be used by supporting the
Counter-State The Taliban State and the Northern Alliance Counter-State in Afghanistan
prior to 11 September may provide a good example of this relationship In the case of a
154
failed nation but with a friendly State foreign internal defense could be conducted to
strengthen the legitimacy and capability of the friendly State in hopes of developing a
functioning government
These failed states and the above premises on the State and Counter-State could
also easily be described as ungoverned spaces as well but in the context of this analysis
ungoverned spaces are areas where there is no effective government control even though
these areas are within the borders of a sovereign nation This area may also extend across
the border into neighboring countries as well such as the tri-border region in South
American where Brazil Paraguay and Argentina intersect and there is no effective
government control which enables criminal activity to thrive In these cases the solution
is to conduct foreign internal defense to help the government regain control of the
ungoverned spaces as the US tried during the White Star program in eastern Laos during
the Vietnam War Another solution when there is no viable government to support in
these efforts is to use a United Nations sanctioned operation or another international
coalition effort such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to move in and provide
security and build a government The US could do this unilaterally but based on the
current operations and domestic support it is unlikely that the US commit to such a
mission This mission would be the far end of the foreign internal defense scale and
would resemble the US efforts in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein and no effective
government system operating
The discussion on Special Forces unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense roles in the future is further complicated by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense
Review which uses the undefined term ldquoglobal unconventional warfare campaignrdquo to
155
describe the campaign against al Qarsquoida and its associated movements Global
unconventional warfare defined within the complete doctrinal context of unconventional
warfare means ldquosupport to global insurgencyrdquo Certainly this was not the intention of
calling it unconventional warfare but it does bring up a larger debate about the missions
that Special Forces will be conducting One problem is the misunderstanding of the
definition and doctrine of unconventional warfare and the other problem is that there is a
sense that anything that is not conventional must be unconventional with little thought
going into the meaning of the words Although well-intentioned at some point the use of
this terminology will likely have some semblance to the failed attempts in the summer of
2005 to change the global war on terror to global struggle against violent extremism or
war on extremism because the global war on terror did not correctly describe the war In
the same way ldquoglobal unconventional warfarerdquo has some political baggage based on the
missing doctrinal context of unconventional warfare definition
This leads to the final question ldquowhat is the role of unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense in the context of the Global War on Terrorrdquo Regardless of how
ldquotransnationalrdquo these movements are the sovereignty of the nation-states is still going to
constrain US and coalition operations Because of this there are really three situations
that unconventional warfare will be used for
1 Operations against Rogue Hostile Regimes or State Sponsors of Terrorism--a
proven operational concept having been used successfully twice since 11 September in
Afghanistan and Iraq These operations will either be the decisive or shaping operation
depending on the political sensitivity of the target country
156
2 Operations against what will be referred to in this study as al Qarsquoida states (AQ
States) in which al Qarsquoida is able to overthrow one or more of the regimes within the
boundary of the 7th century caliphate Unconventional warfare would be used to
overthrow these regimes
3 Operations in failed states when there is no effective government but an
element within the population such as a tribe or ethnic group is the State for all intents
and purposes In this case unconventional warfare will be used to overthrow this State
In each one of these cases as soon as the unconventional warfare or conventional
operations have been successful then they will shift to foreign internal defense in the
same way Afghanistan and Iraq transitioned to foreign internal defense Therefore
regardless of the operation the end state will likely include foreign internal defense
conducted once a friendly government is established
For this very reason foreign internal defense will continue to play a significant
role in US engagement strategies In a flashback to the past foreign internal defense will
be conducted for three reasons as well
1 Primarily to protect friendly states threatened by insurgency especially al
Qarsquoida sponsored insurgency such as the Sunni insurgency in Iraq supported by al
Qarsquoida affiliated Abu Musab Zarqawi or state-sponsored insurgency such as the Shirsquoa
insurgency supported by Iran
2 Foreign internal defense during peacetime engagement under the Theater
Security Cooperation Plan or during postconflict mission after the transition from
unconventional warfare and or conventional operations
157
3 To gain control of ungoverned spaces by supporting a weak government or
some portion of the population that is in these areas and will support US and coalition
efforts such as the Hmong tribesmen in Laos to regain control of these areas In extreme
cases international intervention could be used such as United Nations or other
internationally recognized coalitions or alliances to gain control establish a secure
environment and establish a government able to gain and maintain control
Therefore unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense will be the
primary missions of Special Forces in the future Figure 9 provides the actual framework
for Special Forces role within the Global War on Terror The figure shows clearly the
types of operations that will be conducted depending on the situation Analysis of the US
Special Operations Command threat model and the types of operations required for each
threats pictured in figure 10 also supports the above conclusions
Finally figure 9 also shows the relationship between operational preparation of
the environment and other missions Operational preparation of the environment is not
unconventional warfare but applies to every Special Forces missions Figure 9 shows
operational preparation of the environment as the precursor to different types of
operations Because this mission has its own tasks associated with it this may be the
operation that emerges as a new operational concept Another concept shown on the map
is counterinfrastructure instead of counterterrorism to signify that this mission can be
carried out against a regimersquos infrastructure or the infrastructure of an insurgent group
This would also be a more proactive mission versus the current counterterrorism
operations and could easily use ldquosurrogatesrdquo or indigenous forces to conduct these
operations yet would not be unconventional warfare
158
Figure 9 Special Forces Operations within the Global Counterinsurgency Effort
159
Figure 10 US Special Operations Command Threat Model Source United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 (No publishing data 2006) 4 available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedu les3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet accessed on 6 April 2006 Note Missions and arrows were added by the author and are not found in any US Special Operations Command publication
Global Unconventional Warfare against Global Insurgency
For those that argue that unconventional warfare can be used to defea t an
insurgency David Galula provides some interesting insights First he explains wh y
insurgent warfare does not work for the counterinsurgent
Insurgency warfare is specifically designed to allow the camp afflicted with congenital weakness to acquire strength progressively while fighting The counterinsurgent is endowed with congenital strength for him to adopt the insurgentrsquos warfare would be the same as for a giant to try to fit into dwarfrsquos clothing317
317David Galula Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice (St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005) 73
160
David Galula also explains that if the counterinsurgent could operate as a guerrilla he
would have to have the support of the population which in turn means that the actual
insurgents do not have the support Therefore if the insurgent did not have the support of
the populous in the first place then there would be no need for the counterinsurgent to
operate in these areas However he does not discount the use of commando-style
operations in limited forms As he notes ldquoThey cannot however represent the main form
of the counterinsurgentrsquos warfarerdquo318
Another applicable comment from David Galula has to do with the possibility for
the counterinsurgent ldquoto organize a clandestine force able to defeat the insurgent on his
own termsrdquo the essence of the Global Unconventional Warfare concept As David Galula
explains
Clandestinity [sic] seems to be another of those obligations-turned-into-assets of the insurgent How could the counterinsurgent whose strength derives precisely from his open physical assets build up a clandestine force except as minor and secondary adjunct Furthermore room for clandestine organizations is very limited in revolutionary war Experience shows that no rival--not to speak of hostile--clandestine movements can coexist for long319
Summary
This chapter answered the secondary questions showing that unconventional
warfare is the support to insurgency while foreign internal defense is the support given to
a government to help that government defeat subversion lawlessness and insurgency
The description and subsequent models of the transition from unconventional warfare and
foreign internal defense help to clarify the relationship between these two operations The
318Ibid
319Ibid
161
final question on the role of unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense with
respect to non-state actor determined that they are applicable as individual operations
depending on the enemy threat in each country but that global unconventional warfare is
a misnomer This chapter sets the stage to answer the primary question in chapter 5
162
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This study set out to determine if unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as currently defined are still applicable to contemporary and future Special
Forces operations Without a doubt the most confusing aspect of this fifty-year old
debate is the definition of unconventional warfare
Military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes guerrilla warfare and other direct offensive low visibility covert or clandestine operations as well as the indirect activities of subversion sabotage intelligence gathering and escape and evasion320
Although some would argue that the broad statement provides leeway in its
application what has actually happened is that in providing leeway Special Forces have
historically misunderstood the most basic element of the definition--support to
insurgency Much of the blame for this confusion is evident in the historical analysis
presented in chapter 3--Special Forces leaders were trying to provide a niche mission that
would assure Special Forcesrsquo relevance throughout the turbulent periods after Vietnam
and with the end of the Cold War
However the attempts to make unconventional warfare an overarching term and
the birth of the idea that unconventional warfare is any operation conducted by with and
through an indigenous force has had a grave impact on the forcesrsquo understanding of
unconventional warfare With the rise of the non-state actor there is new emphasis to
320JP 1-02
163
adapt unconventional warfare to this new threat regardless if it is the correct mission or
not The bottom line with respect to the current definition of unconventional warfare is
that taken in the context of unconventional warfare history and current doctrine it is
applicable to todayrsquos contemporary environment as evidenced by operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq but by itself could be and is inadvertently applied to missions it
was never intended As the analysis shows in chapter 4 unconventional warfare has a
significant place in future Special Forcesrsquo operations when regime removal is necessary
as in the cases of rogue or hostile regimes (Saddam Husseinrsquos regime) regimes that
support terrorist or global insurgent organization (Taliban) and finally if al Qarsquoida
successfully seizes power in a country within the caliphate In each of these cases
unconventional warfare will be a weapon of choice as either the decisive operation or as a
shaping operation for other elements of national power
As for foreign internal defense the definition is clear and based on the analysis of
the history of foreign internal defense it will without a doubt continue to be applicable
to future Special Forcesrsquo operations This is especially true in operations to overthrow
regimes through conventional operations and or unconventional warfare operations
which will rollover to foreign internal defense The clarity of the definition leaves little
room for misunderstanding ldquoParticipation by civilian and military agencies of a
government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free and
protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo321 The foreign internal
defense definition provides one significant aspect that the unconventional warfare
definition does not--it provides the conditions that are to be met by the operations ldquoto free
321Ibid
164
and protect a society from subversion lawlessness and insurgencyrdquo which leaves little
doubt of the purpose of these operations from peacetime engagement to high-intensity
and high-threat environments like Vietnam and Iraq The foreign internal defense
doctrine defines three types of support--indirect direct and combat--which provides
further clarity In todayrsquos environment and the future the key to success against the
global insurgency will be through foreign internal defense to enable US partner nations to
do exactly what the definition says protect themselves from ldquosubversion lawlessness and
insurgencyrdquo all three ingredients necessary to deny al Qarsquoida and its associated
movement sanctuary support freedom of movement and access to weapons of mass
destruction
Special Forces is the only branch specifically trained and ready to conduct these
operations Although the conventional military is doing its best to develop military
training teams they will never have the training experience and cultural awareness in
these types of operations that Special Forces bring to the table Special Forces is standing
in the door of a new paradigm shift The branch will either stay its current course
continually looking for relevancy or it can seize the opportunity and take its place as a
decisive or shaping force able to conduct unconventional warfare and foreign internal
defense as a key economy of force component of the Joint Forces range of military
operations
Recommendations
First unconventional warfare should be defined as operations by a state or non-
state actor to support an insurgency aimed at the overthrow of a government or an
165
occupying power in another country322 In this definition insurgency would an inclusive
term for resistance or partisan operations as well Like foreign internal defense there
would be three types of support or operational approach indirect direct and combat the
application of which would depend on the political and security environments323 This
would make the definition of unconventional warfare as clear as the current definition of
foreign internal defense and would finally end the confusion by providing a purpose
Also like the foreign internal defense definition the new unconventional warfare
definition would be universal In other words external support could be provided by Iran
Syria China Cuba North Korea and even Al Qarsquoida
With regards to the three types of support or operational approach as used
throughout this study each would be used depending on the environment whether hostile
or denied Indirect support would be used when the environment is denied The indirect
approach would focus on the insurgencyrsquos self-sufficiency by indirectly providing lethal
and nonlethal aid money and training through a third party or in the case of training in
a third party country or in the US as was done with the Tibetans Direct support would
include all aspects of support but would put Special Forces in sanctuary or liberated
areas within the vicinity of the conflict but not in direct contact with the hostile
governmentrsquos forces as was the case with the Contras However during this type of
322Jones Although part of the recommended definition in the above mentioned article upon further research the author has dropped ldquoconstitutedrdquo from the definition since there are fewer ldquoconstitutedrdquo or even governments as historically defined in the likely hotspots of today Instead more and more governments are like the Taliban--not a government in the true sense of the word but strong enough to seize and maintain power as the ldquostaterdquo versus some minority or weaker element the ldquocounter-staterdquo such as the Northern Alliance
323Grdovic
166
support there could be risk to Special Forces personnel if the hostile government
launched punitive strikes or raids into these areas to disrupt or destroy the insurgents
Finally if the operational approach is combat support than Special Forces would conduct
all of the supporting tasks mentioned above and would participate in combat operations
as advisors to the insurgency and coordinate other US assets such as close air support
Second the post-11 September unconventional warfare operations also validated
the seven-phase concept of US sponsored insurgency However the final phase
demobilization would be better served if called transition Thus Special Forces would
begin to shape the postconflict environment as combat operations ended to ensure success
in the stability phase by identifying potential threats providing security and transitioning
the insurgents into local militia units that would disrupt any attempts by former regime
elements to establish an insurgent infrastructure The unconventional warfare to foreign
internal defense transition point should also be captured within unconventional warfare
and foreign internal defense doctrine
Third ensure a broader understanding of unconventional warfare throughout the
military and interagency by describing unconventional warfare in detail in core joint and
service doctrinal manuals Currently for example unconventional warfare is not
mentioned in the 3-0 family of capstone Joint publications or the Armyrsquos field manual on
operational doctrine Instead support to insurgency with no reference to unconventional
warfare is described in single paragraph under stability operations The success of
unconventional warfare in Afghanistan demonstrated that SOF can perform economy of
force operations by supporting insurgencies the Northern Alliance in this case and that
these combined forces can conduct decisive offensive operations SOFrsquos unconventional
167
warfare efforts in Northern Iraq advising the Kurds also validated the concept of using
insurgents to conduct shaping operations in support of conventional forces
Fourth the Global Unconventional Warfare campaign needs to be dropped in
favor of a better term that captures the counterinsurgency nature of this war possibly
global counterinsurgency counter global insurgency global internal defense or global
counter irregular warfare To do this the problem global insurgency must first be
defined A recommended definition is operations by one or more networked non-state
entities with the goal of overthrowing or dramatically changing the global status quo or
disrupting globalization The possible definition for the counter to this would be similar
to the foreign internal defense definition but on a grand-strategy scale
A broad range of direct and indirect interagency coalition special operations and conventional military efforts to defeat global insurgency subversion and lawlessness by denying sanctuary freedom of movement external support mechanisms mass popular support access to weapons of mass destruction psychological and propaganda effects operational intelligence and armed offensive capabilities
Under this definition a single overarching term may not be needed but it would be the
combined ldquoeffectsrdquo of operations across the globe For Special Forces this would include
unconventional warfare foreign internal defense operational preparation of the
battlefield direct action counterterrorism counterproliferation special reconnaissance
and a new term counterinfrastructure Counterinfrastructure would entail destroying
defeating disrupting or capturing hostile regime non-state actor or insurgent
infrastructure This is a more proactive type of operation than counterterrorism which is
generally reactive in nature This operational term describes the current global
interdiction of al Qarsquoida and associated movements as well as the operation taken to
168
capture former regime elements and insurgent leaders in Iraq This operation would also
include the use of surrogates
Fifth operational preparation of the environment needs to be added to the core
special operations forces core mission or more correctly operations This operation is
not unconventional warfare but an operation in and of itself that can set the conditions
for the execution of the other core tasks By making it a stand-alone mission specific
doctrine could be published for operational preparation of the environment instead of
capturing this doctrine in other core mission doctrine which adds to the confusion
Sixth if unconventional warfare becomes an overarching term for operations by
with and through indigenous or surrogate forces then the confusion over unconventional
warfare will continue A possible solution would be to define each of the Special Forces
missions separately under this umbrella term The above recommended unconventional
warfare definition would instead be used to define a new term such as support to
insurgency or STI The big three ldquoby with and throughrdquo missions would be support to
insurgency operational preparation of the environment and foreign internal defense
However the other operational terms counter-proliferation counterterrorism counter-
infrastructure direct action and special reconnaissance could also be conducted by
through and with indigenous and surrogate forces and use the same three operational
approaches as outlined for unconventional warfare When used this way they could also
fall under this overarching unconventional warfare term324
324Jones On further analysis of this problem this is a better solution than the one outlined in the Why Words Matter paper which suggested support to insurgency and operations against non-state actors would fall under this overarching term Based on the US Special Operations Command 2006 posture statement the use of surrogates and
169
Seventh this study has also highlighted a deficiency in the joint doctrinersquos
definition of insurgency The current joint definition for insurgency does not address
resistance or partisan operations against an occupier reading ldquoan organized movement
aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo325 Instead of this definition a new recommended definition for insurgency is
ldquoan organized movement or resistance aimed at the overthrow of a constituted
government or removal of an occupying power through the use of subversion and armed
conflictrdquo
Finally one of the byproducts of this study was the identification of a trend which
tries to leverage ldquounconventional warfare skillsrdquo to separate Special Forces from the rest
of the special operations community326 To some these are the skills that make up the
warrior-diplomat capability of Special Forces However Special Forces soldiers use these
same skills regardless of the mission and this is what sets Special Forces apart If Special
Forces are truly ldquospecialrdquo compared to the rest of the special operations community it is
because of the nature of their training and mindset that have not been readily transferable
to other special operation forces Therefore these unconventional warfare skills are
actually Special Forces skills and should be captured in this manner to not only leverage
indigenous forces during other types of operations must be clarified based on the noted fact that direct action and counterterrorism were not listed as one of the operational missions of Special Operation Forces having been rolled up under unconventional warfare
325JP 3-0 V-13
326Rothstein 102
170
their uniqueness but also to reduce the confusion between unconventional warfare the
operation and a set of skills
Areas for Further Research
During the research of this project numerous other areas of research came to light
that warrant further study
First was the Special Forces direct action and intelligence collection focus the
most efficient use of these high-demand and low-density assets or could they have been
employed as trainers and advisors to produce a larger positive effect on the growth and
success of the Iraqi and Afghani security forces while simultaneously reducing the
insurgency
Second would a large-scale employment of Special Forces detachments be a
better long-term choice for training and advising than the conventional military training
team concept This is based on the premise that US domestic support for the prolonged
operations in Iraq is a direct reflection of continued conventional force deployments
Therefore these deployments could be shortened by using Special Forces to conduct
economy of force operations and allowing the conventional military to withdraw
Third conduct a detailed study of counterinfrastructure operations This would
include not only unilateral US efforts but host-nation partner and surrogate operations
and operations using former elements that have been ldquoturnedrdquo in what are called ldquopseudoshy
operationsrdquo
Last could a Special Forces deployable task force and the related command and
control structure and training capacity be able to develop a host nation military and
internal security forces and systems filling the role of the Multi-National Security 171
Transition Command ndashIraq This idea comes from the doctrinal based premise that an
operational detachment alpha can train equip and employ an indigenous battalion
Therefore based on a logical progression of capabilities a Special Forces company also
known as an operational detachment bravo should be able to train and advise an
indigenous brigade a Special Forces battalion an operational detachment charlie should
be capable of training and advising an indigenous division a Special Forces Group then
would be able to train and advise an indigenous Corps and a deployable Special Forces
task force headquarters such as a Joint Forces Special Operations Component
commander of appropriate general officer rank and his staff would be able to train and
advise an indigenous Army This final level would be capable and prepared to do exactly
what the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq has done but instead of
being an ad hoc organization it would be an inherent Special Forces capability and
responsibility
172
GLOSSARY
Antiterrorism Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and propert to terrorist acts to include limited response and containment by local military forces Also called AT (JP 1-02)
Biometrics The measuring of physical human features to ensure that a person once registered can be identified later even if his or her identity documents or facial characteristics change(US Army Battle Command Battle Lab) Campaign Plan A plan for a series of related military operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within a given time and space (JP 1-02)
Civil Administration An administration established by a foreign government in (1) friendly territory under an agreement with the government of the area concerned to exercise certain authority normally the function of the local government or (2) hostile territory occupied by United States forces where a foreign government exercises executive legislative and judicial authority until an indigenous civil government can be established Also called CA administration (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Designated Active and Reserve component forces and units organized trained and equipped specifically to conduct civil affairs activities and to support civil-military operations Also called CA (JP 1-02)
Civil Affairs Activities Activities performed or supported by civil affairs that (1) enhance the relationship between military forces and civil authorities in areas where military forces are present and (2) involve application of civil affairs functional specialty skills in areas normally the responsibility
Civil-Military Operations The activities of a commander that establish maintain influence or exploit relations between military forces governmental and nongovernmental civilian organizations and authorities and the civilian populace in a friendly neutral or hostile operational area in order to facilitate military operations to consolidate and achieve operational US objectives Civil-military operations may include performance by military forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of the local regional or national government These activities may occur prior to during or subsequent to other military actions They may also occur if directed in the absence of other military operations Civil military operations may be performed by designated civil affairs by other military forces or by a combination of civil affairs and other forces Also called CMO (JP 1-02)
Combatant Command A unified or specified command with a broad continuing mission under a single commander established and so designated by the President through the Secretary of Defense and with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of
173
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Combatant commands typically have geographic or functional responsibilities (JP 1-02)
Combatant Commander A commander of one of the unified or specified combatant commands established by the President (JP 1-02)
Combatting Terrorism Actions including antiterrorism (defensive measures taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist acts) and counterterrorism (offensive measures taken to prevent deter and respond to terrorism) taken to oppose terrorism throughout the entire threat spectrum Also called CBT (JP 1-02)
Conventional Forces (1) Those forces capable of conducting operations using nonnuclearweapons (2) Those forces other than designated special operations forces (JP 1-02)
Counterdrug Those active measures taken to detect monitor and counter the productiontrafficking and use of illegal drugs Also called CD (JP 1-02)
Counterinsurgency Those military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency Also called COIN (FM 1-02 1-47)
Counterintelligence Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage other intelligence activities sabotage or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof foreign organizations or foreign persons or international terrorists activities Also called CI (JP 1-02)
Counterterrorism Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent deter preempt and respond to terrorism Also called CT (JP 1-02)
Country Team The senior in-country US coordinating and supervising body headed by the chief of the US diplomatic mission and composed of the senior member of each represented US department or agency as desired by the chief of the US diplomatic mission (JP 1-02)
Direct Action Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions by special operations forces or special operations-capable units to seize destroy capture recover or inflict damage on designated personnel or material (FM 1-02 1-60)
Foreign Internal Defense Participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion lawlessness and insurgency Also called FID (JP 1-02)
Host Nation A nation that receives the forces andor supplies of allied nations coalition partners andor NATO organizations
174
Hostile Environment Operational environment in which hostile forces have control as well as the intent and capability to effectively oppose or react to the operations a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Indigenous Native originating in or intrinsic to an area or region (FM 3-0520)
Insurgency An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Interagency Coordination Within the context of Department of Defense involvement the coordination that occurs between elements of Department of Defense andengaged US Government agencies nongovernmental organizations and regional and international organizations for the purpose of accomplishing an objective (JP 1-02)
Internal Defense And Development The full range of measures taken by a nation to promote its growth and to protect itself from subversion lawlessness and insurgency It focuses on building viable institutions (political economic social and military) that respond to the needs of society Also called IDAD (JP 1-02)
Joint Task Force A joint force that is constituted and so designated by the Secretary of Defense a combatant commander a subordinate unified command commander or an existing joint task force commander Also called JTF (JP 1-02)
Military Assistance Advisory Group A joint Service group normally under the military command of a commander of a unified command and representing the Secretary of Defense which primarily administers the US military assistance
Military Civic Action The use of preponderantly indigenous military forces on projects useful to the local population at all levels in such fields as education training public works agriculture transportation communications health sanitation and others contributing to economic and social development which would also serve to improve the standing of the military forces with the population (US forces may at times advise or engage in military civic actions in overseas areas) (JP 1-02)
Military Support to Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Department of Defense activities that support US Government plans for stabilization security reconstruction and transition operations which lead to sustainable peace while advancing US interests (DoDD 300005)
Paramilitary Forces Forces or groups distinct from the regular armed forces of any country but resembling them in organization equipment training or mission (JP 1-02)
Permissive Environment Operational environment in which host country military and law enforcement agencies have control as well as the intent and capability to
175
assist operations that a unit intends to conduct (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Special Operations Operations conducted by specially organized trained and equipped military and paramilitary forces to achieve military political economic or informational objectives by unconventional military means in hostile denied or politically sensitive areas (FM 1-02 1-173)
Special Operations Forces Those Active and Reserve Component forces of the Military Services designated by the Secretary of Defense and specifically organized trained and equipped to conduct and support special operations Also called SOF (JP 1-02)
Special Reconnaissance Reconnaissance and surveillance actions conducted by special operations forces to obtain or verify by visual observation or other collection methods information concerning the capabilities intentions and activities of an actual or potential enemy or to secure data concerning the meteorological hydrographic or geographic characteristics of a particular area (FM 1-02 1-174)
Stability Operations Operations that promote and protect US national interests by influencing the threat political and information dimensions of the operational environment through a combination of peacetime development cooperative activities and coercive actions in response to a crisis (FM 1-02 1-175)
Stability Operations Military and civilian activities conducted across the spectrum from peace to conflict to establish or maintain order in States and regions (DoDD 300005)
Subversion Action designed to undermine the military economic psychological or political strength or morale of a regime See also unconventional warfare (JP 1shy02)
Support to Counterinsurgency Support provided to a government in the military paramilitary political economic psychological and civic actions it undertakes to defeat insurgency (JP 1-02)
Support to Insurgency Support provided to an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02)
Surrogate someone who takes the place of or acts for another a substitute (FM 3-0520)
Terrorism The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political religious or ideological (JP 1-02)
176
Transition Point Authorrsquos definition for the point of phase shift from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defense operations or conventionally a shift from conflict to postconflict
Uncertain Environment Operational environment in which host government forces whether opposed to or receptive to operations that a unit intends to conduct do not have totally effective control of the territory and population in the intended operational area (Upon approval of the JP 3-0 revision this term and its definition will be included in JP 1-02)
Unconventional Warfare A broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration predominantly conducted through with or by indigenous or surrogate forces who are organized trained equipped supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source It includes but is not limited to guerrilla warfare subversion sabotage intelligence activities and unconventional assisted recovery Also called UW (JP 1-02)
177
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams Thomas K Military Doctrine and the Organization Culture of the United States Army Ann Arbor University Microfilms 1990
________ US Special Operations Forces in Action The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare Portland OR Frank Cass Publishers 1998
Ancker III Clinton J Doctrine Imperatives PowerPoint briefing Fort Leavenworth KS Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate 2005
Ancker III Clinton J and Michael D Burke ldquoDoctrine for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Military Review (July-August 2003) Available from httpwwwfindarticles comparticles mi_m0PBZis_4_83ai_109268858 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004)
Andrade Dale and Lieutenant Colonel James H Willbanks ldquoCORDSPhoeniz Counterinsurgency Lessons from Vietnam for the Futurerdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 18
Asprey Robert B War in the Shadows The Guerrilla in History New York NY William Morrow and Company Inc 1994
Ayers Cynthia E ldquoIraqi Resistance to Freeedom A Frommian Perspectiverdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 68-84
Baer Robert See No Evil The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIArsquos War on Terrorism New York NY Three Rivers Press 2001
Bailey Cecil E ldquoOPATT The US Army SF Advisers in El Salvadorrdquo Special Warfare (December 2004) 18
Bank Aaron USA Colonel Retired From OSS to Green Berets New York Pocket Books 1986
Barker Geoffrey T A Concise History of US Army Special Operations Forces Fayetteville NC Anglo-American Publishing Company 1988
Bataandiarycom ldquoMilitary Units in the Philippinesrdquo 10 June 2005 Available from httpwwwbataandiarycomResearchhtm Internet Accessed on 3 May 2006
Bernhard Michael ldquoThe Lessons of a Successful Military Occupationrdquo Strategic Insight (May 2003)
Biddle Stephen ldquoSpecial Forces and the Future of Warfare Will SOF Predominate in 2020rdquo US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute 2004
178
Book Elizabeth ldquoRole of Special Ops Evolves Over Timerdquo National Defense Magazine February 2002 Available from httpwwwnationaldefensemagazineorgarticle cfmId=719 Internet Accessed on 10 September 2004
Boyatt Mark D Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Forces of Special Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1994) 10-17
Boykin William G ldquoVigilant Warrior 2002 War Game Demonstrates ARSOFrsquos Value to the Objective Forcerdquo Special Warfare (September 2001) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442223 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
________ Major General ldquoFrom the Commandantrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 1
Briscoe C H Dr ldquoBalikatan Exercise Spearheaded ARSOF Operations in the Philippinesrdquo Special Warfare (September 2004) 25
Brook Robin Sir ldquoThe London Operation The British Viewrdquo in The Secrets War The Office of Strategic Services in World War II George C Chalou ed Washington DC National Archives and Records Administration 1992
Brown Frederic J Lieutenant General Retired ldquoAmericarsquos Army Expeditionary and Enduring-Foreign and Domesticrdquo Military Review (November-December 2003) Available from httpwwwarmymilprof_writingvolumesvolume2february_ 20042_04_4_pfhtml Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Cassidy Robert M Major ldquo41 (sic) Why Great Powers Fight Small Wars Badlyrdquo Military Review (September-October 2002 English Edition) Available from httpwwwcgscarmymilmilrevenglishSepOct02cassidyasp Internet Accessed on 31 October 2003
Cavallora Gina ldquoIraqis get the basics Drill sergeants deploy to the war zonerdquo The Army Times (June 2004) 22
CBS News ldquoCIA insider says Osama hunt flawedrdquo 15 September 2004 Available from httpwwwcbsnewscomstories20040810terrormain 635038shtml Internet Accessed on 24 April 2006
Central Intelligence System Factbook on Intelligence Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency nd
Charters David and Maurice Tugwell ldquoSpecial Operations and the Threats to United States Interests in the 1980srdquo in Special Operations in US Strategy ed Frank R Barnett B Hugh Tovar and Richard H Shultz Washington DC National Defense University Press in cooperation with National Strategy Information Center Inc 1984
179
Chiarelli Peter W Major General and Major Patrick R Michaelis ldquoWinning the Peace The Requirements for Full-Spectrum Operationsrdquo Military Review (July-August 2005) 7
Cline Lawrence E ldquoThe New Constabularies Planning US Military Stabilization Missionsrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 14 no 3 (Autumn 2003) 158-184
Coffey Ross Major ldquoRevisiting CORDS The Need for Unity of Effort to Secure Victory in Iraqrdquo Military Review (March-April 2006) 24
Collins John M ldquoRoles and Functions of US Special Operations Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (July 1993) 22-27
Corum James S and Wray R Johnson Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and Terrorists Lawrence KS University Press of Kansas 2003
Cox Matthew ldquorsquoThey are so undisciplinedrsquo Iraqi forces learn ropes of battle but curve is steeprdquo The Army Times 27 (September 2004) 8
Crawley Vince and Nicole Gaudiano ldquoAbu Ghraib Investigator 4th Star lsquoUnlikelyrsquo For Sanchez-CIA lsquoGhost Detaineesrsquo Raise Lawmakersrsquo Irerdquo The Army Times 20 (September 2004) 12
Crerar J H Colonel Retired US Army ldquoCommentary Some Thoughts on Unconventional Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2000) 37-39
Daugherty William J Executive Secrets Covert Action and the Presidency Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2004
Defend America News ldquoIraq Time Linerdquo Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milIraqTimeLinehtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Department of Defense 2003-2004 SOF Posture Statement Special OperationsLow-Intensity Conflict Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpolicysolic 2003_2004_SOF_Posture_Statementpdf Internet Accessed on 10 April 2004
________ Capstone Concept for Joint Operations Version 20 Washington DC US Government Printing Office August 2005 Available from httpwwwdticmil futurejointwarfareconceptsapproved_ccjov2pdf Internet Accessed on 17 February 2006
________ Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 300005 Military Support for Stability Security Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations Washington DC GPO 2005
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America 2004 A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Available from httpwwwoftosdmil
180
librarylibrary_filesdocument_377_National20Military20Strategy201320 May2004pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
________ Quadrennial Defense Review Report 6 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilpubspdfsQDR20060203pdf Internet Accessed on 8 February 2006
________ Stability Operations Joint Operating Concept September 2004 Available from httpwwwdticmiljointvisionfinalstab_jocdoc Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004)
Department of the Army and the Department of the US Air Force Field Manual 100shy20Air Force Pamphlet 3-20 Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflicts Washington DC GPO 1990
Department of the Army Field Manual 100-25 Doctrine for Army Special Operations Forces Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 100-5 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 30 April 2003
________ Field Manual 3-0520 (FM 31-20) Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 2001
________ Field Manual 3-05201 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 3-07 (FM 100-20) Stability Operations and Support Operations Washington DC GPO 2003
________ Field Manual 31-20 Doctrine for Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 20 April 1990
________ Field Manual 31-20 Special Forces Operational Techniques Washington DC GPO 1971
________ Field Manual 31-20-3 Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces Washington DC GPO 1989
________ Field Manual 31-21 Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations Washington DC GPO 1961
________ Field Manual 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerilla Warfare Washington DC GPO 1951
181
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1963
________ Field Manual 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces Washington DC GPO 1969
________ Field Manual 90-8 Counterguerrilla Operations Washington DC GPO 1986
________ The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower-Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section I Army Strategic Planning Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
________ The Army Plan FY 2006-2023 Section II Army Planning Priorities Guidance FY 2006-2023 Washington DC GPO 2003
Department of the Navy Small Wars Draft January 2004 Available from httpwww smallwarsquanticousmcmilSWMSmall20Wars20Draft20Web202pdf Internet Accessed on 31 May 2004
Department of the State Iraq Weekly Status Report Washington DC Department of State 30 November 2005
Devotie Michael W Sergeant First Class ldquoUnconventional Warfare A Viable Option for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1997) 30-32
Diamond Larry ldquoWhat Went Wrong in Iraqrdquo Foreign Affairs 83 no 5 (September October 2004) 34-56
Dickson Keith D Dr ldquoThe New Asymmetry Unconventional Warfare and Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Fall 2001) 14-19
Dobbins James ldquoAfghanistanrsquos Faltering Reconstructionrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2002 Available from httprandorgcommentary091202NYThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoNation-building The Inescapable Responsibility of the Worldrsquos Only Superpowerrdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2003 Available from httprandorg publicationsrandreviewissuessummer2003nation1html Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
________ ldquoSecuring the Peace Will Require Finesserdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary062704CRhtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
182
Dobbins James John G McGinn Keith Crane Seth G Jones Rollie Lal Andrew Rathmell Rachel Swagner and Anga Timilsina Americarsquos Role in Nation-Building From Germany to Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND 2003
Donahoe Patrick J Lt Col ldquoPreparing Leaders for Nationbuildingrdquo Military Review (May-June 2004) 24-26
Fastabend David Brigadier General ldquoA Joint and Expeditionary Army with Campaign Capabilitiesrdquo PowerPoint presentation slide ldquoRelevant and Ready Landpowerrdquoprepared for Joint Forces Command TRADOC 2004
Federal News Service ldquoBriefing on Coalition Post-war Reconstruction and Stabilization Effortsrdquo (transcript) Washington DC Federal News Service Inc 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmiltranscripts2003tr20030612shy0269html Internet Accessed on 4 October 2004
Field Kimberly C and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Fischer Joseph R ldquoCut from a Different Cloth The Origins of US Army Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (April 1995) 29-39
Fishel John T ldquoLittle Wars Small Wars LIC OOTW The GAP and Things That Go Bump in the Nightrdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 372-398
Flavin William ldquoPlanning for Conflict Termination and Post-Conflict Successrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 95-112 Available from httpcarlislewwwarmymil usawcparameters03autumnflavinhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Flournoy Michegravele Interagency Strategy and Planning for Post-Conflict Reconstruction Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) March 2002 Available from httpwwwcsis orgisppcrstrategypdf Internet Accessed on 10 October 2004
Foot M R D The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946 London British Broadcasting Corporation 1984
Franks Tommy General with Malcolm McConnell American Soldier General Tommy Franks Commander in Chief United States Central Command New York Harper-Collins Publishers Inc 2004
Frizzell Art ldquoOperational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgoverview html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Galula David Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice St Petersburg FL Hailer Publishing 2005
183
Garamone Jim ldquoUS Army Trains Free Iraqi Forces in Hungaryrdquo American Forces Press Service 23 February 2003 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnews Feb2003 n022420003_200302243html Internet Accessed on 24 September 2004
Gilmore Gerry J ldquoDespite Challenges Iraqi Forces lsquoIn the Fightrsquordquo DefenseLINK News 29 September 2004 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilnewsSep 2004n09292004_2004092910html Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
GlobalSecurityOrg ldquoAfrican Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) [and] African Contingency Operations Training and Assistancerdquo Available from httpwwwglobal secuirtyorgmilitaryagencydodacrihtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2006 and General James L Jones Commander United States European Command Testimony before the House Armed Services committee 24 March 2004 Available from httpwwwglobalsecurityorgmilitarylibraray congress2004_hr04-03-24joneshtm Internet Accessed on 18 April 2005
Godson Roy Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards US Covert Action and Counterintelligence New Brunswick Transaction Publisher 2004
Grau Lester W Lt Col (ret) ldquoSomething Old Something New Guerrillas Terrorists and Intelligence Analysisrdquo Military Review (July-August 2004) 42-49
________ Multiple conversations on topic with the author September 2003 to October 2004 Fort Bragg NC
________ ldquoFOB 103 Operations in Northern Iraqrdquo Slide presentation Fort Bragg NC 28 August 2003
________ (Now Lieutenant Colonel) Numerous conversations on this topic with author from June 2003 to May 2005 Fort Bragg NC
ldquoGreek Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgitalyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Grossman Elaine M ldquoAdvisers to Rumsfeld DOD Canrsquot Sustain Current Stability Operationsrdquo Inside The Pentagon Inside Washington Publishers 23 September 2004 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetgrossman advisers_to_rumsfeldhtm Internet Accessed on 9 October 2004
Halstead Brian D CW2 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Questions Concerns and Proposalsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 29-31
Hamblet John ldquoChinese Operational Grouprdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg chinahtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
184
Harclerode Peter Fighting Dirty The Inside Story of Covert Operations from Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden London Cassell and Company 2001
Harned Glenn M Colonel ldquoUnconventional Operations Back to the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (October 1995) 10-14
Heckler Jeremy Sgt ldquoIraqis Denounce Barsquoath Party en masserdquo Iraqi Destiny 1 no 57 (January 2004) 2 5
Herd Walter Colonel ldquoWW III The global unconventional War on Terrorrdquo USASOC News Service 13 June 2005 Available from httpnewssocmilreleases 05JUN050613-01htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Hoffman Bruce ldquoLessons from the Past for Iraqrsquos Futurerdquo Santa Monica CA RAND 2004 Available from httprandorgcommentary072304SDUThtml Internet Accessed on 2 August 2004
Hoffman Bruce Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in Iraq Santa Monica CA RAND National Security Research Division 2004
Hogan David W Jr CMH Publication 70-65 US Army Special Operations in World War II Washington DC Department of the Army 1992
Holms Richard L ldquoNo Drums No Bugles Recollections of a Case Officer in Laos 1962-1964rdquo Studies in Intelligence 147 no 1 Available from httpwwwodci govcsistudiesvol147no1article01html Internet Accessed on 18 June 2005
Horton Lynn Peasants in Arms War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua 1979-1994 Athens GA Ohio University 1998
Hughes Patrick M ldquoGlobal Threats and Challenges The Decades Ahead Prepared Statement before the Senate Armed Services Committeerdquo 2 February 1999 Washington DC Available from wwwdefenselinkmilspeeches1999 s19990202-hugheshtml Internet Accessed on 30 August 2003
Irvin Will Lt Col (ret) The Jedburghs The Secret History of the Allied Special Forces France 1944 New York NY PublicAffairs 2005
Ivosevic Michael J CW3 ldquoUnconventional Warfare Refining the Definitionrdquo Special Warfare (Spring 1999) 39
Jaffe Greg ldquoOn Ground in Iraq Capt Ayers Writes His Own Playbook Thrust Into New Kind of War Junior Officers Become Armyrsquos Leading Experts Risky Deal with Village Sheikrdquo Wall Street Journal 22 September 2004 1-6
Jalali Ali A ldquoRebuilding Afghanistanrsquos National Armyrdquo Parameters (Autumn 2002) 72-86
185
Joes Anthony James America and Guerrilla Warfare Lexington KY The University Press of Kentucky 2000
John F Kennedy Special Warfare Training Center Around the Campfire A Discussion The War on Terror Cody WY Government Publications January 2004
Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Publication 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms Washington DC GPO 2001 (as amended through 9 June 2004) Available from httpwwwdticmildoctrinejeldoddict Internet Accessed on 16 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Operations Revision Final Coordination Washington DC GPO 23 December 2005
________ Joint Publication 3-0 Operations Washington DC GPO 10 September 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Doctrine for Joint Special Operations Washington GPO 2003
________ Joint Publication 3-05 Joint Special Operations Task Force Operations RSD Washington DC GPO 12 April 2001
________ Joint Publication 3-071 Joint Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Foreign Internal Defense (FID) Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism Washington DC GPO 1 February 2006 Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilqdrdocs 2005-01-25-Strategic-Planpdf Internet Accessed on 6 February 2006
________ National Military Strategy of the United States of America A Strategy for Today A Vision for Tomorrow Washington DC GPO 2004
________ National Military Strategy Chapter 2 The Strategic Environment-shyOpportunities and Challenges Available from wwwdticmiljcsnmsstrategihtm Internet Accessed on 3 October 2004
Joint Special Operations Insights Issues and Lessons (SIPRNET) Norfolk VA (classified website used only for reference ndash no classified information released)
Jones D Major ldquoUnconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matterrdquo 5 February 2005 Scheduled to be published in the summer of 2006 as part of the Joint Special Operation Universityrsquos annual essay contest special report
Jones Frank L ldquoArmy SOF in Afghanistan Learning the Right Lessonsrdquo Joint Force Quarterly (Winter 2002-03) 16-22
186
Jones Gary M Colonel and Major Christopher Tone ldquoUnconventional Warfare Core Purpose of Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Summer 1999) 4-15
Kaplan Robert D Imperial Grunts The American Military on the Ground New York NY Random House 2005
Kem Jack D Dr Campaign Planning Tools of the Trade Fort Leavenworth KS Department of Joint and Multinational Operations US Army Command and General Staff College nd
Kershner Michael R Colonel ldquoSpecial Forces in Unconventional Warfarerdquo Military Review (January-February 2001) 84-86
________ ldquoUnconventional Warfare The Most Misunderstood Form of Military Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 2-7
Kiper Richard L Dr ldquoAn Army For Afghanistan The 1st Battalion 3rd SF Group and the Afghan Armyrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) 42-43
Kruger Kimbra L ldquoUS Military Intervention in Third World Conflict The Need for Integration of Total War and LIC Doctrinerdquo Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 4 no 3 (Winter 1995) 399-428
Lambert Geoffrey C Major General ldquoMajor Combat and Restoration Operations A Discussionrdquo Special Warfare (February 2004) 2-5
________ ldquoThe Cody Conference Discussing the War on Terrorism and the Future of SFrdquo Special Warfare (May 2004) 20-27
Language Technology Office DCD ldquoBiometrics Automated Toolset (BAT)rdquo (Briefing Slides) US Army Battle Command Battle Lab Huachuca March 2004
Lauber Mark LTC Retired Multiple discussions with author on this topic Fort Leavenworth KS May 2006
Leever Gretha Municipal Affairs Officer United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo Multiple conversations with the author on the UNrsquos capacity to conduct postconflict operations Kosovo November 2001 to January 2002
Lewis S J Jedburgh Team Operations in Support of the 12th Army Group August 1944 Ft Leavenworth KS Combat Studies Institute 1991
Lindsay Franklin A Basic Doctrine for the Conduct of Unconventional Warfare McKinsey and Company Inc 1961
187
Linnington Abigail T Captain Unconventional Warfare as a Strategic Foreign Policy Tool The Clinton Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan Thesis The Fletcher School (Tufts University) 2004
Lomperis Timothy J From Peoples War to Peoples Rule Insurgency Intervention and the Lessons of Vietnam Chapel Hill NC The University of North Carolina Press 1996
Magni Frank Sgt ldquoAfghan Army Maneuvers With Task Force Broncordquo Defend America News 13 August 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesaug2004a081304ahtml Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
Malcom Ben S Colonel Retired and Ron Martz White Tigers My Secret War in North Korea Washington DC Brasseyrsquos 1996
Maloney Sean M ldquoAfghanistan From Here to Eternityrdquo Parameters (Spring 2004) 4shy15
Manwaring Max G and John T Fishel ldquoInsurgency and Counter-Insurgency Toward a New Analytical Approachrdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 3 no 3 (Winter 1992) 272-310
Marquis Susan L Unconventional Warfare Rebuilding US Special Operations Forces Washington DC The Brookings Institute 1997
Marr Phebe ldquoIraq lsquoThe Day Afterrsquo Internal Dynamics in Post-Saddam Iraqrdquo Naval War College Review I VI no 1 (Winter 2003) Available from httpwwwnewnavy milpressReview2003winterpdfsart1-w03pdf Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
Materazzi Albert ldquoItalian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg italyhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Maurer Kevin ldquoIraqis Learn To Take Up Their Own Defenserdquo Fayetteville Online 24 February 2004 Available from httpwwwfayettevilleobservercomprinter phpStory-6193578 Internet Accessed on 8 March 2004
McClintock Michael Instruments of Statecraft US Guerrilla Warfare Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism 1940-1990 2002 Available from httpwwwstatecraftorg Internet Accessed on 21 February 2006
McCollaum Peter Major Email discussion with author on the nature of rules of engagement at the transition point on 16 May 2006
McCormick Gordon Dr US Naval Post Graduate School Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Division Presentation at the Unconventional Warfare
188
Conference August 2003 US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center Fort Bragg NC
McMillan Joseph ldquoBuilding an Iraqi Defense Forcerdquo Strategic Forum no 198 (June 2003) 1-7
McRaven William H SPEC OPS Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare Theory and Practice Navato CA Presidio Press 1996
Meigs Montgomery C ldquoUnorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) 4-18
Messing Major and William Shingleton National Defense Council Foundation World Conflict List 1999 Available from wwwndeforgConflict_ListWorld99html Internet Accessed on 20 February 2004
Metzgar Major Greg E ldquoUnconventional Warfare Definitions from 1950 to the Presentrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 18-23
Miksche F O Secret Forces The Technique of Underground Movements London Faber and Faber Limited
Miller Dean J Tech Sgt ldquoUS Teaches Georgians Command Control Skillsrdquo Defend America News 14 July 2002 Available from httpwwwdefendamerica milarticlesjun2002a061402ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Miller Russell Behind the Lines The Oral History of Special Operations in World War II New York NY New American Library 2002
Morris Niger ldquoMission Impossible The Special Operations Executive 1940-1946rdquo BBC History Available from httpwwwbbccoukhistorywarwwtwosoe_printhtml Internet Accessed on 1 December 2005
Műller Kurt E ldquoToward a Concept of Strategic Civil Affairsrdquo Parameters (Winter 1998) 80-98
Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq MNSTC-I et al Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommil Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
Naylor Sean D ldquorsquoPaying the pricersquo for pulling out Commanders see a tough fight to retake Fallujahrdquo The Army Times 4 October 2004 10
Newman Dean S Major ldquoOperation White Star A UW Operation Against An Insurgencyrdquo Special Warfare (April 2005) 28-36
ldquoNorwegian Operational Group Unit NORSO Irdquo Available from httpwww ossogorgnorso_01html Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
189
ldquoNorwegian Operational Groupsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg norwayhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
OrsquoHanlon Michael E ldquoA Flawed Masterpiece (Afghanistan Conflict 2001-)rdquo Foreign Affairs 81 no 3 (May-June 2002) 1-7
Oakley Robert B and TX Hammes ldquoSecuring Afghanistan Entering a Make-or Break Phaserdquo Strategic Forum no 205 (March 2004) 1-6
Paddock Alfred H Jr US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Washington DC National Defense University 1982
Paddock Jr Alfred H US Army Special Warfare Its Origins Kansas University Press 2002
Prados John Presidentsrsquo Secret Wars CIA and Pentagon Covert Operations from World War II Through the Persian Gulf Chicago Elephant Paperbacks 1986
Prusher Ilene R ldquoNews outlets flood Kirkuk-and satellite dish sales soar-as Husseinrsquos era of censorship crumblesrdquo Christian Science Monitor 29 April 2003 Available from httpwww csmonitorcom20030429p06s01-woiqhtml Internet Accessed on 30 October 2004
Pullen Randy Col ldquoAfghan National Army Recruiting Extends to Northeastrdquo Defense LINK News 24 September 2004 Available from httpwww defenselinkmil newsSep2004n09242004_2004092402html Internet Accessed on 29 September 2004
________ ldquoNew Afghan Soldiers Pledge to Serve a Nationrdquo Defend America News 29 July 2004 Available from httpwwwdefendamericamilarticlesjul2004 a072904ahtml Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Reed James W ldquoShould Deterrence Fail War Termination in Campaign Planningrdquo Parameters (Summer 1993) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmymiluaswc parameters1993reedhtm Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Robinson Linda Masters of Chaos The Secret History of the Special Forces New York NY Public Affairs 2004
________ ldquoPlan of Attackrdquo US News and World Report 1 August 2005 Available from httpwwwusnewscomusnewsnewsarticles0508011terror_4htm Internet Accessed on 12 May 2006
Rothstein Hy S Afghanistan and the Troubled Future of Unconventional Warfare Annapolis MD Naval Institute Press 2006
190
Salmoni Barak A ldquoIraq Now Choosing Sovereignty or Democracyrdquo Strategic Insights 3 no 8 (August 2004)
Sandler Stanley ldquoArmy Psywarriors A History of US Army Psychological Operationsrdquo Special Warfare (October 1992) 18-25
Sandler Stanley ldquoSeal the Victory A History of US Army Civil Affairsrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 1991) 38-41
Schadlow Nadia ldquoWar and the Art of Governancerdquo Parameters (Autumn 2003) 85-94
Schoomaker Peter J (GEN CINC US Special Operations Command) ldquoSpecial Operations Forces The Way Aheadrdquo undated 2
Sepp Kalev I Dr ldquoThe Campaign in Transition From Conventional to Unconventional Warrdquo Special Warfare (September 2002) Available from httpwwwfind articlescomp articlesmi_m0HZYis_3_15ai_96442212 Internet Accessed on 8 September 2004
Shaw Geoffery D T ldquoPolicemen versus Soldiers the Debate Leading to MAAG Objections and Washington Rejections of the Core of the British Counter-Insurgency Advicerdquo Small Wars and Insurgencies 12 no 2 (Summer 2001) 15shy78
Shultz Richard H Jr The Secret War Against Hanoi New York NY HarperCollins Publisher 1999
Simpson Charles M III Inside the Green Berets The First Thirty Years Novato CA Presido Press 1983
Singlaub John K Major General (ret) Hazardous Duty An American Soldier in the Twentieth Century New York NY Summit Books 1991
Skinner Mike ldquoThe Renaissance of Unconventional Warfare As an SF mission-Special Forcesrdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2002) 16 Available from httpwwwfind articlescomparticles mi_m0HZYis_1_15ai_89646648print Internet Accessed on 2 October 2004
Smith Jeffrey R ldquoKosovo Still Seethes as UN Official Nears Exitrdquo The Washington Post 18 December 2000 A20 quoted in Kimberly C Field and Robert M Perito ldquoCreating a Force for Peace Operations Ensuring Stability with Justicerdquo Parameters (Winter 2002-03) 77-87
Specialoperationcom ldquoWhite Star Laos 1959-1962rdquo Available from httpwww specialoperationscomHistoryCold_WarWhite_StarDefaulthtml Internet Accessed on 22 January 2006
191
ldquoSpecial Operations Executiverdquo Available from httpwwwspartacusschoolnet couk2WWsoehtm Internet Accessed on 2 December 2005
Steele Dennis ldquoThe Front Line of the FuturerdquoArmy Magazine (July 2001) [article onshyline] Available from httpwwwausaorgwebpubDeptArmyMagazine nsfbyidCCRN-6CCRXV Internet Accessed on 14 May 2006
Szelowski David W Lt Col USMCR (ret) ldquoThe Beginning of the Next Warrdquo handlebarsorg July 2003 Available from httpwwwhandlebarsorga=article printamparticleid =204 Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
The Advisor Volume 1 Multi-national Security Transition Command 11 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep11pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 2 Multi-national Security Transition Command 18 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisorTheAdvisor Sep18pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
________ Volume 3 Multi-national Security Transition Command 25 September 2004 Available from httpwwwmnstciiraqcentcommildocsadvisor TheAdvisorSep25pdf Internet Accessed on 1 October 2004
Thomas Glenn CPT (now Major) Conversations with author 2004-2005 Fort Bragg NC
Tomes Robert R ldquoRelearning Counterinsurgency Warfarerdquo Special Warfare (Spring 2004) Available from httpwwwfindarticlescomparticlesmi_m0IBR is_1_34ai_115566394 Internet Accessed on 24 August 2004
Tovo Kenneth E Major ldquoSpecial Forces Mission Focus for the Futurerdquo Special Warfare (December 1996) 2-11
Unified Combatant Command for Special Operations Forces ldquoUS Code Title 10 Section 167rdquo Available from www4lawCornelleduuscode Internet Accessed on 10 January 2004
US Special Operations Command United States Special Operations Command Posture Statement 2006 Available from httpwwwhousegovhascschedules3-8shy06Brownpdf Internet Accessed on 6 April 2006
US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center ST 31-201 Special Forces Operations Fort Bragg NC Special Warfare Center Printing Office November 1978
US Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) ldquoUnconventional Warfare 2020rdquo (Power Point Presentation) No Date
192
US Army Special Operations Command ldquoMission Area Analysis for POM FY02-07rdquo Fort Bragg NC January 1999
US Army Training and Doctrine Command The Army Future Force Decisive 21st Century Landpower Strategically Responsive Full Spectrum Dominant Fort Monroe VA GPO 2003
________ TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-520 Fort Monroe VA GPO 2004
US Government The 911 Commission Report Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Washington DC GPO 2004
US Marine Corps Small Wars Manual Manhattan KS Sunflower University Press 1988
Volckmann Russell Lieutenant Colonel US Army FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare Washington DC United States Government Printing Office 1951
von Clausewitz Carl On War ed and trans by Michael Howard and Peter Paret Princeton NJ Princeton University Press 1976
Warner Michael The Office of Strategic Services Americarsquos First Intelligence Agency Washington DC Central Intelligence Agency 2000 Available from httpwww ciagovciapublicationsossindexhtm Internet Accessed on 4 December 2005
Wendt Eric P Lieutenant Colonel (P) ldquoStrategic Counterinsurgency Modelingrdquo Special Warfare (September 2005) 5
Wilcox Greg and Gary I Wilson ldquoMilitary Response to Fourth Generation Warfare in Afghanistanrdquo d-n-inet 5 May 2002 Available from httpwwwd-n-inetfcs wilson_wilcox_miltary_responsehtm Internet Accessed on 11 August 2004
Williams Thomas J ldquoStrategic Leader Readiness and Competencies for Asymmetric Warfarerdquo Parameters (Summer 2003) Available from httpcarlisle-wwwarmy miluaswcparameters03summerwilliamshtm Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Wilson Robert Lee Captain ldquoUnconventional Warfare SFrsquos Past Present and Futurerdquo Special Warfare (Winter 2001) 24-27
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoPrepared Statement for the House Appropriations Committee Foreign Operations Subcommitteerdquo Available from httpwwwdefenselinkmilspeeches 2004 sp20040429-depsecdef0303html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
193
Wolfowitz Paul ldquoThe Road Map for a Sovereign Iraqrdquo Available from httpwww defenselinkmil speeches2004sp20040609-depsecdef0463html Internet Accessed on 26 August 2004
Woodward Bob Plan of Attack New York Simon and Schuster 2004
Yaphe Judith S ldquoTurbulent Transition in Iraq Can It Succeedrdquo Strategic Forum no 208 (June 2004) 1-8
Yardley Michael T E Lawrence A Biography New York NY Cooper Square Press 2000
ldquoYugoslavianOperationsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorgyugoslavianhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Islandsrdquo Available from httpwwwossogorg yugo_islandshtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
ldquoYugoslavianOperations Mainlandrdquo Available from httpwwwossog orgyugoshymainlandhtml Internet Accessed on 3 December 2005
Zoroya Gregg ldquoAfghan duty offers ultimate in unconventional warfarerdquo USA Today 12 April 2004 Available from httpglobalspecopscomultunconventional warfare html Internet Accessed on 14 September 2004
194
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
Combined Arms Research Library US Army Command and General Staff College 250 Gibbon Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-2314
LTC (Retired) Joseph G D Babb Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC (Retired) Mark Lauber Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
James Corum PhD Department of Joint Military Operations USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
LTC Chadwick W Clark Director Combined Arms Center Special Operation Forces Education 1 Reynolds Ave Fort Leavenworth KS 66027-1352
John C Knie Colonel SF Director of Training and Doctrine US Army John F Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School Fort Bragg NC 28310
195
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
1 Certification Date 16 June 2006
2 Thesis Author Major D Jones
3 Thesis Title Ending the Debate Unconventional Warfare Foreign Internal Defense and Why Words Matter
4 Thesis Committcc Mcmbcrs dwltampb Signatures ylamplzampamp
5 Distribution Statement See distribution statements A-X on reverse then circle appropriate distribution statement letter code below
O B C D E F X SEE EXPLANATION OF CODES ON REVERSE
If your thesis does not fit into any of the above categories or is classified you must coordinate with the classified section at CARL
6 Justification Justification is required for any distribution other than described in Distribution Statement A All or part of a thesis may justify distribution limitation See limitation justification statements 1-10 on reverse then list below the statement(s) that applies (apply) to your thesis and corresponding chapterssections and pages Follow sample format shown below
EXAMPLE Limitation Justification Statement 1 ChapterISection I Page(s)
Direct Military Support (10) Critical Technology (3) Administrative Operational Use (7)
Chapter 3 Section 4 Chapter 2
I I I
12 31 13-32
Fill in limitation justification for your thesis below
Limitation Justification Statement ChapterSection Pagels)
7 MMAS Thesis Authors Signature f
STATEMENT A Approved for public release distribution is unlimited (Documents with this statement may be made available or sold to the general public and foreign nationals)
STATEMENT B Distribution authorized to US Government agencies only (insert reason and date ON REVERSE OF THIS FORM) Currently used reasons for imposing this statement include the following
1 Foreign Government Information Protection of foreign information
2 Proprietary Information Protection of proprietary information not owned by the US Government
3 Critical Technology Protection and control of critical technology including technical data with potential military application
4 Test and Evaluation Protection of test and evaluation of commercial production or military hardware
5 Contractor Performance Evaluation Protection of information involving contractor performance evaluation
6 Premature Dissemination Protection of information involving systems or hardware from premature dissemination
7 AdministrativeOperational Use Protection of information restricted to official use or for administrative or operational purposes
8 Software Documentation Protection of software documentation - release only in accordance with the provisions of DoD Instruction 79302
9 Specific Authority Protection of information required by a specific authority
10 Direct Military Support To protect export-controlled technical data of such military significance that release for purposes other than direct support of DoD-approved activities may jeopardize a US military advantage
STATEMENT C Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and their contractors (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT D Distribution authorized to DoD and US DoD contractors only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most reasons are 1 3 7 8 and 9 above
STATEMENT E Distribution authorized to DoD only (REASON AND DATE) Currently most used reasons are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10
STATEMENT F Further dissemination only as directed by (controlling DoD office and date) or higher DoD authority Used when the DoD originator determines that information is subject to special dissemination limitation specified by paragraph 4-505 DoD 52001-R
STATEMENT X Distribution authorized to US Government agencies and private individuals of enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical data in accordance with DoD Directive 523025 (date) Controlling DoD office is (insert)
197